Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 22STCV00084, Date: 2023-06-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV00084    Hearing Date: June 29, 2023    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Plaintiff MUFG Union Bank, N.A. (“Plaintiff”) requests that the Court enter default judgment against Defendant Rod Babcock, individually and dba MOR Solutions. Plaintiff seeks judgment in the total amount of $38,058.38, comprising $27,018.21 demanded in the Complaint, $76.39 in late charges, $9,120.46 in interest, $642.78 in costs, and $1,200.54 in attorney fees.

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

First, Plaintiff submits the Declaration of Rosa Noriega, an “SBB Collections Officer” with Plaintiff. (Noriega Decl., ¶ 1.) Ms. Noriega indicates that “I have thoroughly searched the file relating to this account and other files in this office and have been unable to locate the original Exhibit “1” Small Business Credit Application and Agreement, the Exhibit “3” Small Business Credit Agreement and Disclosure Statement and the Exhibit “4” Credit Scored Term Sheet. Therefore, I believe that the originals have been mislaid, lost or destroyed. The exhibits attached hereto are true and correct copies of the original documents. It is respectfully requested that the Court accept copies of these exhibits in place and instead of the originals.” (Noriega Decl., ¶ 18.) However, Plaintiff does not appear to have provided a proposed order to accept the copies in lieu of the originals. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1806.)

Second, Plaintiff asserts that “[t]he total sum now due and payable from the Defendants, and each of them, to Plaintiff under the Agreement is the principal sum of $27,018.21, plus accrued interest from March 21, 2020 through January 26, 2021 in the amount of $2,583.35, plus accrued interest from January 27, 2021 through March 23, 2023 in the amount of $6,537.11…” (Noriega Decl., ¶ 10, underline added.) However, Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that it seeks accrued interest from the date of “March 22, 2020.” (Compl., ¶ 9, underline added.)

Plaintiff also asserts that “Plaintiff’s interest calculations are evidenced by a Payment History spreadsheet setting forth accrued interest from January 27, 2021 to March 23, 2023 on Defendant’s account, which is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit ‘6’...” (Noriega Decl., ¶ 17, Ex. 6.) Exhibit 6 to Ms. Noriega’s declaration appears to indicate that interest from January 27, 2023 to March 23, 2023 was calculated at an interest rate of 11.25%. (Ibid.) However, Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that “[t]he total sum now due and payable from the Defendants, and each of them, to Plaintiff under the Agreement is the principal sum of $27,018.21, plus accrued interest from March 22, 2020 through December 15, 2021 in the amount of $5,265.61, plus interest continuing thereafter at the rate Prime plus 8.00% per annum.” (Compl., ¶ 9, underline added.) The Complaint does not appear to reference any interest rate of 11.25%.

In addition, it is unclear how Plaintiff calculated the requested interest of $2,583.35 (from March 21, 2020 through January 26, 2021). As discussed, pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subdivision (a)(3), a party seeking a default judgment must file “[i]nterest computations as necessary.”

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

DATED:  June 29, 2023                                 ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court