Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 23STCV27342, Date: 2024-08-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV27342    Hearing Date: August 13, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Plaintiff Navy Federal Credit Union (“Plaintiff”) requests entry of default judgment against Defendant Artium AME, Inc. Plaintiff seeks judgment in the total amount of $59,530.19, comprising $56,977.14 in damages, $2,029.54 in attorney’s fees, and $523.51 in costs.

On June 17, 2024, the Court issued an Order on Plaintiff’s request for default judgment, providing, inter alia, as follows:

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

First, on December 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed a proof of service indicating that the summons and Complaint were personally served on “Atrium AME Inc” on November 30, 2023. (Emphasis added.) However, Plaintiff seeks entry of default judgment against “Artium AME, Inc.” and the defendant named in the Complaint is “Artium AME, Inc.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, the spelling of the defendant’s name on the proof of service appears to be incorrect.

Second, this is an action on a loan contract (Compl., pp. 3-4), but Plaintiff has not provided the original of the note. In lieu of the original, Plaintiff may also provide a declaration explaining loss or unavailability, along with a proposed order to accept a copy in lieu of the original. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1806; Kahn v. Lasorda's Dugout, Inc. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1118, 1124.).” (June 17, 2024 Order at pp. 1:18-2:2.)

The Court’s June 17, 2024 minute order in this action provides, inter alia, that “[t]he Court continues the hearing on the request for Default Judgment as to defendant Atrium Ame Inc., as follows: Plaintiff to file and serve the corrected Proof of Service and the Declaration and Order regarding the unavailability of the note by July 17, 2024. It appears that Plaintiff filed the corrected Proof of Service but the default clerk rejected it. It appears that the default clerk may have made an error based upon the name in the docket for this file which identifies the defendant as Atrium AME, Inc. The Court accepts the corrected Proof of Service.

However, it does not appear that Plaintiff filed the declaration and proposed order regarding the original of the note. The Court will discuss these issues with counsel at the hearing. 

DATED:  August 13, 2024                             ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court