Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 21PSCV00687, Date: 2023-04-20 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 21PSCV00687    Hearing Date: April 20, 2023    Dept: G

Plaintiffs Armstrong Logistic Inc. and DNA Motoring, Inc.’s Application for Default Judgment

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs Armstrong Logistic Inc. and DNA Motoring, Inc.’s Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This is a breach of contract and fraud action arising from a forklift purchase. On August 15, 2020, Armstrong Logistic Inc. and DNA Motoring, Inc. (collectively, Plaintiffs) purchased two pre-owned Raymond 560-OPC30TT forklifts from Martinelli Marketing, LLC (Martinelli Marketing), doing business as Best Deal Forklifts and operated by Adam Martinelli (Martinelli, collectively, Martinelli Defendants), Carissa Coronado (Coronado), and Garrett Zentgraf (Zentgraf). Plaintiffs allege Martinelli Marketing, Martinelli, Coronado, and Zentgraf (collectively, Defendants) failed to deliver one of the two forklifts to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege Defendants previously sold Plaintiffs a Raymond 960-CSR30T forklift that was nonfunctional and after Defendants failed to repair the forklift, a third-party repair shop assessed the forklift and determined it was defective beyond repair. Plaintiffs allege Martinelli promised to provide a refund for the defective forklift but never did.

On August 24, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants and Does 1-20, alleging the following causes of action: (1) fraud–intentional misrepresentation, (2) negligent misrepresentation, (3) breach of contract, (4) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (5) unlawful business practices, and (6) money had and received (mislabeled as the “fourth” cause of action).

On February 27, 2023, the court struck the answer by the Martinelli Defendants for failure to appear and entered default against them. On March 16, Plaintiffs submitted the present application for default judgment.

An OSC re: Default Judgment is set for April 5, 2023.    

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 585 permits entry of a default judgment after a party has filed to timely respond or appear.  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 or an application for separate judgment under CCP § 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (7) exhibits as necessary; and (8) a request for attorneys’ fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties.  (Cal. Rules of Court 3.1800.)

ANALYSIS

Plaintiffs seek default judgment against Martinelli Defendants in the total amount of $51,297.53, including $45,745 in damages, $4,322.85 in interest, and $1,229.68 in costs. Because the court finds Plaintiffs have submitted sufficient evidence, the court GRANTS their application for default judgment.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ application for default judgment is GRANTED.

Plaintiff proposed judgment lists the total judgment amount at $51,367.53, $70 more than the amount approved by the court.  Plaintiff to submit a judgment with the correct total amount of $51,297.53.