Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 22STCV01686, Date: 2023-07-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV01686 Hearing Date: July 10, 2023 Dept: 31
TENTATIVE
Plaintiff’s request for default judgment
against Defendant Otis Cooper and cost in the amount of $ 934.70 is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Background
On January 14, 2022,
Plaintiff Mara Enterprises (“Mara”) filed a Complaint against Defendants
Sannette Gite, as Trustee of the Vaught Family Trust; Yong Hwa Chung; Jun Hyn
Park, et al. The Complaint asserts causes of action
for:
1) Quiet Title;
and
2) Declaratory
Relief
On
June 23, 2022, a Notice of Partial Settlement was filed between Mara and Jung
Hyun Park and Jung Hyun Park as Co-Trustee of the Paulistavivola Living Trust,
U/A Dated February 17, 2017.
On
January 13, 2-23, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Sannette Gite (“Gite”), as
Trustee of the Vaughn Family Trust, filed a Second Amended Cross-Complaint
(SACC) against Plaintiff Mara Enterprises; Estate of Yong Hwa Chung; Jung Hyun
Park; Young Hwachung and Jung Hyun Park as Co-trustees of the Paulistvivola
Living Trust; U.S. Bank National Association; Velocity Commercial Capital, LLC;
Otis Cooper; Hayley M. Chung; Kelly C. Chung; and Roes 4 to 50 alleging causes
of action for:
1)
Quiet Title;
2)
Declaratory Relief’
3)
Slander of Title;
4)
Fraud (against Jung Hyun Park,
Yong Hwa Chung; and Jung Hyun Park as Co-Trustees of Paulistavivola Trust);
5)
Intentional Infliction of
Emotional Distress (IIED) (against Jung Hyun Park, Yong Hwa Chung; and Jung
Hyun Park as Co-Trustees of Paulistavivola Trust);
6)
Negligent Infliction of Emotional
Distress (NIED); and
7)
Implied Equitable
Indemnity (against Jung Hyun Park, Yong Hwa Chung; and Jung Hyun Park as
Co-Trustees of Paulistavivola Trust).
On April 06, 2022, Mara filed an
Amended Complaint adding Otis Cooper as a Defendant in this action.
Default was entered against Otis
Cooper on June 16, 2022.
Defendant Mara now seeks Default
Judgment against Otis Cooper.
Legal Standard
Code of Civil Procedure section 585 permits entry
of a judgment after a Defendant has failed to timely answer after being
properly served. 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 § 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. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800.)
Discussion
Plaintiff/Cross
Defendant Mara Enterprises (“Mara”) seeks default judgment against Otis Cooper
declaring that:
1) Otis
Cooper does not dispute the validity of the December 30, 2019 Deed of Trust as
Mara’s secured lien against the Property; and
2) Otis
Cooper does not have a right, title, estate or interest in the subject property
that is superior to Mara’s interest in the Property as outlined in the December
30, 2019 Deed of Trust.
Mara
also seeks $934.70 in costs against Defendant Otis Cooper. (Comp. Prayer for
Relief ¶ 3.)
“Where a party defaults, the allegations against it
are deemed true.” (Collin v. American Empire Ins.
Co. (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 787, 805.) Here, the Court assumes
that Defendant Otis Cooper does not dispute the material allegations in the
Complaint and that Mara holds a valid Deed of Trust and Defendant Otis Cooper
holds no right, title, estate, or interest in the subject property that is
superior to Mara’s interest. (Compl. ¶¶ 36, 58, 59, 65.)
“The question of whether the
court should render a judgment against a
defaulting defendant when there are several defendants is one that is entrusted
to the discretion of the court by the provisions of section 579 of the
Code of Civil Procedure.” (Morehouse v. Wanzo
(1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 846, 852.)
Here, the Court
has the discretion to enter default judgment against Otis Cooper and leave the
action to proceed against the other Defendants. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 579.)
However, the Court is not convinced that entering default judgment will dispose
of all claims against Otis Cooper in this action. Otis Cooper is also a named
Cross-Defendant on the Second Amended Cross-Complaint, but default judgment has
not been sought against Otis Cooper in regard to the Cross-Complaint.
Therefore, there is a risk of inconsistent judgments.
California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a)(7) requires that the party seeking default
judgment dismiss “all parties against whom judgment is not sought” or make “an
application for separate judgment against specified parties under Code of Civil
Procedure section 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment[.]” Mara’s declaration in support of default judgment fails to explain
why a separate judgment against Otis Cooper is warranted in this case and would
not result in inconsistent judgments. Unless Mara can show why a separate
judgment should be entered, the Court DENIES Mara’s request for default
judgment.
Conclusion
Plaintiff’s request for default judgment
against Defendant Otis Cooper and cost in the amount of $ 934.70 is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.