Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 23STCV08079, Date: 2024-06-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV08079    Hearing Date: June 10, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC (“Plaintiff”) requests entry of default judgment against Defendants Edmund Robert Soracco and Americas Legal Immigration Foundation (jointly, “Defendants”). Plaintiff seeks judgment in the total amount of $29,360.58, comprising $1,085.58 in costs and $28,275.00 in attorney’s fees. Plaintiff also seeks a judgment that “Defendants are permanently enjoined from engaging in the business of an immigration consultant, as that business is defined by the Immigration Consultants Act (the ‘ICA’), which is codified at Business and Professions Code Sections 22440, et seq.”

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

First, Plaintiff submitted a specially prepared proposed judgment and did not use Form JUD-100. The Court will require the use of Form JUD-100 because this does not appear to be a case where a lengthy or detailed judgment is necessary. (See LASC Rule 3.213(b).)

Second, as set forth above, Plaintiff seeks a judgment that “Defendants are permanently enjoined from engaging in the business of an immigration consultant, as that business is defined by the Immigration Consultants Act (the ‘ICA’), which is codified at Business and Professions Code Sections 22440, et seq.” In support of this request for relief, Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration cites to Business and Professions Code section 22446.5, subdivision (b), which provides that “[a]ny other party who, upon information and belief, claims a violation of this chapter has been committed by an immigration consultant may bring a civil action for injunctive relief on behalf of the general public and, upon prevailing, shall recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.” However, Plaintiff does not appear to provide any further legal authority specifically supporting its request for an injunction prohibiting Defendants from engaging in the business of an immigration consultant.

Third, it appears Plaintiff submits evidence of one of the alleged violations. Specifically, Plaintiff’s counsel states in his supporting declaration that “[a]ttached as Exhibit 1 are true and correct copies of image captures of various online advertising from Defendant’s advertisements for immigration services. Notably, the advertisements do not contain a clear and conspicuous statement that Defendants are not attorneys in violation of Business and Professions Code section 22442.2(c)(1).” (Medvei Decl., ¶ 14, Ex. 1.)

However, it appears that as to the remaining violations, Plaintiff’s counsel asserts that “[i]n defaulting, Defendant has admitted each of the allegations in the complaint…” (See Medvei Decl., ¶ 11.) The Court notes that in Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 287, the Court of Appeal noted that if the relief requested in the complaint consists of  “either nonmonetary relief, or monetary relief in amounts which require either an accounting, additional evidence, or the exercise of judgment to ascertain (such as emotional distress damages, pain and suffering, or punitive damages), the plaintiff must request entry of judgment by the court…In such cases, the plaintiff must affirmatively establish his entitlement to the specific judgment requested. The court shall hear the evidence offered by the plaintiff, and shall render judgment in the plaintiff’s favor for that relief, not exceeding the amount stated in the complaint, in the statement required by Section 425.11, or in the statement provided for by Section 425.115, as appears by the evidence to be just.” (Internal quotations omitted, emphasis in original.) Here, Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, nonmonetary relief. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff must affirmatively establish its entitlement to the specific judgment requested.

The Kim Court further noted that “while Code of Civil Procedure section 585 does give the court discretion to ‘permit the use of affidavits, in lieu of personal testimony, as to all or any part of the evidence or proof required or permitted to be offered, received, or heard in those cases,’ it specifically requires that ‘[t]he facts stated in the affidavit or affidavits shall be within the personal knowledge of the affiant and shall be set forth with particularity, and each affidavit shall show affirmatively that the affiant, if sworn as a witness, can testify competently thereto.” (Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc., supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at page 287, emphasis in original.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for default judgment without prejudice. The Court will discuss with Plaintiff a schedule for resubmission of the default judgment package.

DATED:  June 10, 2024                                 ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court