Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 20PSCV00040, Date: 2022-08-15 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: 20PSCV00040    Hearing Date: August 15, 2022    Dept: R

University of La Verne v. Young Actors Camp, et al. (20PSCV00040)

______________________________________________________________________________

 

Plaintiff University of La Verne’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

 

Tentative Ruling

 

 

Plaintiff University of La Verne’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT is

GRANTED.

 

Background

 

This case involves a promissory note. Plaintiff the University of La Verne (“Plaintiff”) alleges that Defendants the Young Actors Camp, Stefan Rodriguez, and Nichelle Rodriguez are indebted to Plaintiff in the sum of $66,992.00 for goods and services rendered.

 

On January 17, 2021, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants for:

 

1. Common Count (Goods and/or Services Rendered),

2. Common Count (Open Book),

3. Common Count (Account Stated), and

4. Common Count (Money Had and Received)

 

On March 31, 2020, Plaintiff filed its first application for default judgment, which was denied on 09/04/2020.[1]

 

On December 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed its second application for default judgment, which was denied on 02/04/2021 for the same reason the first application was denied.

 

On April 6, 2021, Plaintiff filed an ‘Application for Order to Vacate and Set Aside Default’ to allow it to amend its Complaint, which was granted on 04/09/2021.

 

On June 24, 2021, Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). The FAC alleged (1) Breach of Contract and (2) Common Counts) against Defendants Nichelle Rodriguez and Inspire Me, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”).

 

On September 16, 2021, default was entered against Defendants Nichelle Rodriguez and Inspire Me Inc.

 

On October 7, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant Application for Default Judgment, which the court denied.

 

On May 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Application for Default Judgment.

 

Discussion

 

The court previously denied Plaintiff’s application for the following reason:

 

The application is denied because Plaintiff fails to explain the association between Defendant Nichelle Rodriguez and Defendant Inspire Me Inc. A review of the attached files indicates that the contract is presumably a dispute over student loans. Specifically, the Collections Repayment Agreement indicates that Nichelle Rodriguez signed an agreement on May 15, 2017 promising to pay the University of La Verne the balance of her account, which is $67,028.71. (FAC, Ex A.) Pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 3.1800 subdivision (7), an application requires “[a] dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under Code of Civil Procedure section 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment.” To this end, only Dismissal of Does 1 through 10 has been sought and granted, not of Inspire Me Inc.

 

Now, Plaintiff has cured the defect by dismissing Inspire Me Inc. (on May 2, 2022).

 

As for the entry of default judgment against Defendant, the declaration of the Executive Director of Budget and Student Financial Services states that Defendant is indebted to Plaintiff in the amount of $67,028.71. Therefore, the damages sought are accurate.

 

As for attorney fees, Plaintiff correctly seeks $2,230.57 in attorney fees (See Local Rule 3.214).

 

As for interest, Plaintiff has been in breach for 1,813 days (May 22, 2017 to May 2, 2022).  Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to $33,286.68 in interest.

 

Conclusion

 

Based on the foregoing, the application is GRANTED, and default judgment is entered against Defendant Nichelle Rodriguez in the amount of $103,543.64.



[1] The defected noted was that it was unclear how the individual defendants were personally liable.