Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 20STCV12778, Date: 2023-08-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV12778    Hearing Date: August 21, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE RULING

The request for entry of default judgment is CONTINUED.

Background

The Complaint in this action was filed on April 1, 2020.  Plaintiff Meroujan Savadians (“Plaintiff”) asserts claims for injuries arising out of an automobile accident that occurred in Los Angles, California on April 3, 2018.  The Complaint names Jose C. Ruacho (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 20 as defendants.

A proof of service was filed with the Court in September 9, 2020 indicating that Defendant was personally served with the summons, complaint, statement of damages, and other items on September 3, 2020. 

When Defendant did not answer, proposed intervenor Loya Casualty Insurance Company (“Loya”) moved for leave to intervene, stating that it was the Defendant’s insurer.  On April 14, 2021, the Court denied the motion to intervene without prejudice because Loya had failed to submit a copy of its proposed answer-in-intervention with its motion, as is required.

Despite this ruling, and without a court order, Loya filed an Answer in Intervention on August 31, 2021.  A proof of service attached to the Answer indicates that Plaintiff’s counsel was served.

On March 15, 2022, Loya’s counsel served a Notice of Change of Lead Counsel.  Again, Plaintiff’s counsel appears to have been served.

On November 23, 2022, a stipulation and proposed order to continue the trial was submitted on a form signed by counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for Defendant.  The stipulation was rejected because Defendant had not filed a response to the complaint.

On February 3, 2023, Plaintiff requested, and the Clerk’s office entered, the default of Defendant. 

On June 30, 2023, Plaintiff submitted a request for default judgment.  On that same day, Plaintiff dismissed the Doe defendants without prejudice.

Discussion

The Court cannot approve the proposed default judgment submitted on June 30, 2023, for multiple reasons: (1) Item 5a of the proposed judgment is filled out incorrectly, indicating that Meroujan Savadians is both plaintiff and defendant; (2) Item 6 is blank; (3) Plaintiff has not submitted a copy of the statement of damages served on Defendant (to allow the Court to verify that the requested default judgment does not exceed the amount identified in the statement of damages).

In addition, although the filing was not permitted by the Court, Loya has filed an Answer in Intervention.

Conclusion

The Order to Show Cause is continued for 45 days to allow Plaintiff to cure the defects in the default papers.

In addition, the Court, on its own motion, sets an Order to Show Cause why the purported Answer in Intervention filed by Loya should not be stricken. 

The two OSCs are to be set for hearing at the same date and time.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice to counsel for Loya and to file proof of service on counsel for Loya within 7 calendar days.