Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case Number: 23PSCV03086, Date: 2024-07-01 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV03086, Date: 2024-07-01 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 a tentative ruling by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 23PSCV03086 Hearing Date: July 1, 2024 Dept: G

Plaintiff Petit Eight, LLC’s Application for Default Judgment

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Petit Eight, LLC’s Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $575,026.83.

BACKGROUND

This is a breach of contract action. In November 2021, Defendant Ludlow Holdings LLC (Ludlow Holdings) entered into an agreement with Plaintiff Petit Eight, LLC (Petit Eight) in which Petit Eight agreed to loan $277,423 to Ludlow Holdings in exchange for $55,484.60 in interest. The loan was secured by a deed of trust on a property in South Pasadena. Subsequently, Petit Eight alleges Ludlow Holdings breached the agreement and defaulted on Ludlow Holdings’ obligations after losing the South Pasadena property to foreclosure and failing to repay the loan. In July 2022, Ludlow Holdings entered into a second agreement with Petit Eight in which Petit Eight agreed to loan $200,000 to Ludlow Holdings in exchange for $40,000 in interest. The loan was secured by a deed of trust on a property in Sierra Madre. Subsequently, Petit Eight alleges Ludlow Holdings breached the agreement after failing to repay the loan by its maturity date of January 7, 2023.

On October 6, 2023, Petit Eight filed a complaint against Ludlow Holdings, Kurt Ludlow, and Does 1-100, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract, (2) money had and received, (3) book account, (4) account stated, (5) breach of contract, (6) money had and received, (7) book account, and (8) account stated.

On October 23, 2023, Petit Eight’s process server served Ludlow with substitute service in Rancho Cucamonga. On December 11, 2023, the Court entered default against Ludlow after Ludlow failed to file a timely answer.

On March 12, 2024, Petit Eight’s process server personally served Ludlow Holdings in Los Angeles. On May 1, 2024, the Court entered default against Ludlow Holdings after they failed to file a timely answer. On May 17, 2024, Petit Eight submitted the present application for default judgment.

An OSC Re: Default Judgment is set for July 1, 2024.

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

Petit Eight seeks default judgment against Ludlow and Ludlow Holdings in the total amount of $578,426.83, including $477,423.00 in damages, $95,484.60 in interest, $4,664.23 in attorney fees, and $855 in costs. Because the court finds Petit Eight submitted sufficient evidence, the court GRANTS their application for default judgment with the following modification.

While Petit Eight’s application for default judgment requests interest of $95,484.60, their supporting declaration requests reduced interest of $92,084.60 to account for a payment of $3,400 that was made by Ludlow or Ludlow Holdings. (Larkin Decl., ¶ 36.) Accordingly, the Court reduces the awarded interest to this amount for a total judgment of $575,026.83.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Petit Eight’s application for default judgment is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $575,026.83. Plaintiff is ordered to submit a judgment consistent with this ruling forthwith.