Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 21STCV35782, Date: 2023-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV35782    Hearing Date: May 23, 2023    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) requests that the Court enter default judgment against Defendants THC Design, LLC aka THC Design LLC DBA LA Specialty Design (“THC Design LLC”); Rare Transports, LLC aka Rare Transports LLC (“Rare Transports LLC”); and 1346 LA, LLC aka 1346 LA LLC (“1346 LA”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff seeks judgment in the total amount of $38,819.82, comprising $33,676.61 demanded in the Complaint, $2,584.40 in interest, $1,158.51 in costs, and $1,400.30 in attorney fees.

The Court notes a few defects with the submitted default judgment package.

First, the Court notes that agreements attached as Exhibit 1 to Ms. Narayan’s declaration reference “THC Design” and “Rare Transports, LLC” (Narayan Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. 1.) However, no agreement appears to have been provided as to 1346 LA.

Second, paragraph 6 of Ms. Narayan’s declaration provides, “[t]he balance due under the Agreements is the sum of $33,676.61. A true and correct copy of the Statement of Account totaling said balance is attached hereto as Exhibit ‘2’…I have reviewed the invoice and it correctly reflects the status of defendant’s account.” (Narayan Decl., ¶ 6.) The Court notes that Ms. Narayan does not specify in the declaration which of the three Defendants’ accounts she is referring to. The Court also notes that the documents attached as Exhibit 2 to Ms. Narayan’s declaration provide, inter alia, “Attn: THC DESIGN.” (Narayan Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. 2.) One of the documents also provides, “Attn: RARE TRANSPORTS LLC.” (Ibid.) Thus, it is unclear if Plaintiff is contending that only THC Design LLC owes the entire balance of $33,676.61, if Plaintiff contends that Rare Transports LLC owes only a portion of that amount, and if Plaintiff is contending that 1346 LA owes any amount.

Third, Plaintiff’s counsel’s Declaration of Accrued Interest calculates interest from June 9, 2022. Plaintiff’s counsel asserts that June 9, 2022 is the default date. (Jun Decl., ¶ 2.) However, the Court is unable to locate any evidence in Ms. Narayan’s Declaration (or any other competent evidence) demonstrating that Defendants defaulted on June 9, 2022.

Based on the foregoing, the Court denies the request for default judgment without prejudice. The Court will discuss with counsel a schedule for submitting a new default judgment package.

DATED:  May 23, 2023                                 ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court