Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 20PSCV00023, Date: 2022-10-13 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. R at 909-802-1117 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 20PSCV00023    Hearing Date: October 13, 2022    Dept: R

ANGELINA GONZALEZ, et al. vs ERIN C. ABOLENCIA, et al. (20PSCV00023)

______________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiffs’ APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs’ APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT is DENIED without prejudice.

Background

This is a contracts case. Plaintiffs Angelina Gonzalez and Herminio Jimenez Gonzalez (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege the following against Defendants Erin Abolencia, Ricardo Delgado, and Irises Designs:[1] In 2013, Defendants made a proposal to Plaintiffs to invest $30,000 into the business because of ongoing financial difficulties. The parties came to an agreement in which the Plaintiffs would invest $30,000 into the Defendants’ business and in return Plaintiffs would receive 25% of profits for a four (4) year period along with repayment of the $30,000 investment. To date, approximately $2,447.33 has been paid by Defendants.

Discussion

In their summary of the case, Plaintiffs argue that “[t]he well-pled allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint are more than sufficient to provide a basis for the relief Plaintiff seeks.” (Summary of Case p. 3.) Not so.

First, Plaintiffs have provided no agreement. To this, they explain that “it was never signed as the Defendant always gave an excuse on why he did not have it.” (Summary of case p. 2.) At the very least, however, the agreement should have been provided to the court. After all, this is not a demurrer wherein a complaint need not be attached but a default judgment wherein evidence is required. To the extent that Plaintiffs argue they need not provide the agreement because by way of default Defendants implicitly concede the material allegations against them, they do not quote the entirety of Csordas v. United Slate Tile & Composition Roofer (1960) 177 Cal. App. 2d 184. While in Csordas the appellate court asserted that “the party who makes default thereby confesses the material allegations of the complaint,” the court continued to provide that “[w]here ... a cause of action is stated in the complaint and evidence is introduced sufficient to establish a prima facie case the trial court may not disregard the same.” (Id. at 186) (emphasis added). Here, however, Plaintiffs only provide their self-serving declarations.

Second, Plaintiffs seek entry judgment against all Defendants, one which includes a business entity (an LLC). A business entity is a distinct and separate entity than that of its members and generally, individual members may not be held liable for actions of individual members. Here, however, Plaintiffs have failed to explain why an exception applies.

Third, on the topic of joint and several liability, there are two individually named Defendants, yet neither the complaint nor summary of the case are clear as to which Defendant made what promises/statements.

All in all, absent evidence of the very agreement it seeks to impose entry of default judgment upon three Defendants, the application fails.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the application is denied without prejudice.