Judge: Rupert A. Byrdsong, Case: 24STCV09158, Date: 2025-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV09158    Hearing Date: February 7, 2025    Dept: 28

Tentative Ruling

Judge Rupert A. Byrdsong

Department 28

Hearing Date:                                  February 7, 2025          

Case Name:                                      Johnson v. Rahman, et al.

Case No.:                                           24STCV09158                                               

Motion:                                              Default Judgment

Moving Party:                                 Plaintiff Brandon Johnson, on behalf of himself and derivatively on behalf of West Coast Sight and Sound Inc.

Responding Party:                         Unopposed

Notice:                                                OK

Recommended Ruling:               Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment in his favor                                                                        and against Defendants Jordan Rahman and James Rahman is                                                                DENIED.

BACKGROUND

On April 11, 2024, Plaintiff Brandon Johnson, on behalf of himself and derivatively on behalf of West Coast Sight and Sound Inc., (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Jordan Rahman and James Rahman (collectively “Defendants”), as well as against Does 1 through 30. Since this action is a shareholder derivative action, Plaintiff also named West Coast Sight and Sound Inc. as a nominal defendant. Plaintiff alleged causes of action for (1) breach of oral contract, (2) breach of fiduciary duty (self-dealing), (3) breach of fiduciary duty (abandonment), (4) unjust enrichment, (5) aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty, (6) equitable indemnity and contribution, (7) constructive trust, and (8) accounting.

Plaintiff alleges that he and Defendant Jordan Rahman were the directors, officers, and sole equal shareholders of West Coast Sight and Sound Inc. Plaintiff claims that Defendants Jordan and James surreptitiously operated West Coast Sight and Sound LLC to directly compete with West Coast Sight and Sound Inc. Allegedly both the LLC and corporation designed, installed, and serviced video systems, Wi-Fi networks, camera surveillance, and security controlled access systems. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Jordan Rahman diverted revenue and company resources for personal use and gain. Finally, Plaintiff claims Defendant Jordan Rahman moved out of California and abandoned all obligations with West Coast Sight and Sound Inc., resulting in lost projects and lost revenue.

Plaintiff personally served Jordan Rahman on April 23, 2024, and substitute served James Rahman on May 6, 2024. The Clerk entered default against Jordan Rahman on August 2, 2024, and against James Rahman on August 9, 2024. The Court rejected Plaintiff’s first application for entry of default judgment on October 28, 2024. This is Plaintiff’s second application for entry of default judgment.

ANALYSIS

Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) Section 585 permits entry of a judgment after a defendant’s default has been entered.  A party seeking judgment on the default by the Court must file a Request for Court Judgment, and: (1) a brief summary of the case; (2) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3) interest computations as necessary; (4) a memorandum of costs and disbursements; (5) a proposed form of judgment; (6) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought; (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under CCP Section 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (8) exhibits as necessary; and (9) a request for attorneys’ fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties.  CRC 3.1800.

JC Form CIV-100 must be used to request court judgment.  Item number 2 must be completed.  Item number 8 must be completed if the Defendant is an individual.  Plaintiff must submit a proposed form of judgment. 

Here, Plaintiff has submitted a proposed form of judgment, filed CIV-100 Forms for the Defendants, completed Items 2 and 8 for the Defendants, and dismissed all Doe defendants on October 28, 2024.

The issue with granting default judgment in this matter is the presentation of proof of damages. In Plaintiff’s declaration, Plaintiff attests that he is able to prove $55,303.24 in damages and directs the Court to Exhibit 3 for proof. Johnson Decl., ¶ 18. However, Exhibit 3 is a compilation of 55+ pages of miscellaneous documents, some of which are illegible. The documents contained in this exhibit range from emails to text messages to Quickbooks screenshots to billing invoices from multiple entities to layout plans to customer Yelp reviews, all without any explanation or coherency. Exhibit 3 completely lacks any organization structure or any identifying marks to showcase what amounts are to be paid, and if the Court were to total the amounts of invoices in Exhibit 3, the total would far exceed the demand for damages.

Similarly, Johnson attests that Exhibit 6 includes a list of all of Defendant’s improper personal expenditures with company funds. Johnson Decl., ¶ 21. Exhibit 6 suffers the same type of infirmities because Plaintiff attaches more than 20+ pages of bank statements, none of which clearly indicate how Defendant caused $6,209.36 in damages. The bank statements show tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of charges, but again, Plaintiff does nothing to specifically indicate which charges are at issue in this case. Exhibit 6 also contains two random screenshots of Quickbooks entries. If Plaintiff wishes the Court to enter default judgment in his favor, Plaintiff must organize the exhibits and elucidate how the exhibits prove the total damage. The Court is not responsible for doing Plaintiff’s work for him.

Additionally, Plaintiff seeks to recover attorney fees and interests in this case. In looking through Plaintiff’s declarations and supporting materials, Plaintiff has not identified any statutory or contractual basis upon which he is entitled to attorney fees. If Plaintiff seeks to recover either attorney fees and or interest, Plaintiff must show a legal basis for recovering these amounts. More notably, Plaintiff’s counsel states that attorney fees are pursuant to an Agreement, but the Agreement is not anywhere in Plaintiff’s materials. Rodby Decl., ¶ 6.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment in his favor and against Defendants Jordan Rahman and James Rahman is DENIED.