Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 21PSCV00318, Date: 2023-02-06 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. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

Case Number: 21PSCV00318    Hearing Date: February 6, 2023    Dept: O

Plaintiff Pacific Rainbow International, Inc.’s Application for Default Judgment is

DENIED without prejudice.

Background   

Plaintiff Pacific Rainbow International, Inc. (“PRI”) alleges as follows: PRI had various accounts

with Bank of America Corporation dba Bank of America (“BofA”). BofA accepted false checks

that bore forged signature and endorsements into personal accounts belonging to Jenise D.

Freeman (“Freeman”), Demontre Sneed (“Sneed”), Keyondre West (“West”), Sadie Davis

Dewberry (“Dewberry”) and Dauna Bolden (“Bolden”) (collectively, “Individual Defendants”)

and thereafter allowed the Individual Defendants to remove the funds from those accounts.

On April 22, 2021, PRI filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against BofA, Individual Defendants and Does 1-10 for:

1.                  Damages for Breach of Contract

2.                  Breach of California Uniform Commercial Code § 4401 (UCC)

3.                  Negligence

4.                  Breach of UCC §§ 4401, 4208

5.                  Breach of UCC § 3420

6.                  Unjust Enrichment

7.                  Conversion

8.                  Conspiracy

On November 18, 2021, Plaintiff dismissed BofA, with prejudice.

On March 14, 2022, Freeman’s default was entered.

On June 30, 2022, Plaintiff dismissed Sneed, West, Dewberry, Bolden and Does 1-10, without prejudice.

Discussion

Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is denied without prejudice. The following defects are noted:

1.               On June 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed the following three documents in support of the instant default prove-up packet: (1) a Request for Court Judgment (Judicial Council Form CIV-100); (2) a Request for Dismissal (Judicial Council Form CIV-110) and (3) a proposed judgment (Judicial Council Form JUD-100.)

2.               On November 4, 2022, Plaintiff filed additional documents, as follows: (1) a Request for Court Judgment (Judicial Council Form CIV-100); (2) a “Declaration in Support of Motion for Default Judgment” (“Supporting Declaration”); a “Declaration Re Pre-Judgment Interest” from attorney Dennis Winters; and (4) a proposed judgment (Judicial Council Form JUD-100.)

3.               Plaintiff must provide the court with “a brief summary of the case,” and “[d]eclarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested, which Plaintiff has not done. (See Cal. Rules Court, rule 3.1800.) The Supporting Declaration filed on November 4, 2022 is deficient. The Supporting Declaration fails to identify the author of same and is not executed. The Supporting Declaration references “records attached hereto” and “Exhibit “1” (Supporting Decl., ¶¶ 4 and 9), but there are no attachments.