Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22CHCV00066, Date: 2022-08-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00066    Hearing Date: August 8, 2022    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 8-8-22

Case #22CHCV00066

Trial Date: Not Set

CHANGE VENUE

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Golden Auto Group, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Brandon Roe

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Motion to Change Venue to Riverside County Superior Court

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On October 13, 2021, Plaintiff purchased a 2015 Dodge Challenger vehicle from Defendant Golden Auto Group, Inc. Plaintiff obtained financing for the purchase from Defendant, and alleges Defendants failed to disclose certain additional charges, such as the purchase of a $2,990 Partners Alliance Service Corporation service contract, a $1,500 Theft Patrol device, or the 19.07% annual percentage rate on the loan.

On October 27, 2021, a representative from third party Capital One contacted Plaintiff regarding confirmation of the purchase for the “add-on products.” Plaintiff subsequently contacted Defendant and was told said additions were non-negotiable and must be purchased. On November 4, 2021, Defendant sent Plaintiff a text message that Capital One “returned” the contract thereby requiring either the return of the vehicle and loss of the down payment, or payment of $9,000 and a co-signor on the loan. Plaintiff was later told that a new contract was required in order to keep the vehicle. Defendant also offered to separately finance $3,000 of the down payment in a separate agreement.

When Plaintiff informed Defendant that he was speaking with an attorney, Defendant told Plaintiff an outstanding balance still remained on the vehicle. Defendant offered to either work out a new deal or demanded return of the vehicle.

On January 27, 2022, and January 28, 2022 plaintiff filed a complaint against first amended complaint for Violations of Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Violation of the Automobile Sales Finance Act, Violations of the Trust in Lending Act, Violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, and Unfair Competition. On April 1, 2022, the clerk entered a default against Golden Auto Group.

RULING: Off-Calendar

Defendant Golden Auto Group, Inc. moves for a change of venue to Riverside Superior Court based on the location of the business in Corona, California and execution of the contract in this location. Plaintiff counters that the Ree-Levering Motor Vehicle Sales and Financing Act “presumptively” finds a plaintiff’s choice of venue correct, including the residence of Plaintiff.

On April 1, 2022, the clerk entered a default against Golden Auto Group. The instant motion was filed on same date. The default was entered at 10:37 a.m., while the motion was filed at 3:50 p.m. The court therefore finds the default properly entered. Moving defendants cannot file any

responsive pleading unless and until the default is set aside. (Devlin v. Kearny Mesa AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc. (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 381, 385–386 [“‘A defendant against whom a default has been entered is out of court and is not entitled to take any further steps in the cause affecting plaintiff's right of action; he cannot thereafter, until such default is set aside in a proper proceeding, file pleadings or move for a new trial or demand notice of subsequent proceedings’”].)

The motion is therefore taken off-calendar.

Defendant to give notice.