Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 21PSCV00445, Date: 2022-08-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21PSCV00445    Hearing Date: August 8, 2022    Dept: R

Channel Partners Capital, LLC v. Cigar Cabin Inc. (21PSCV00445)

______________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiff Channel Partners Capital, LLC’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Channel Partners Capital, LLC’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT is GRANT without prejudice.

Background

This is a breach of contract case. Plaintiff Channel Partners Capital, LLC (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: On or about August 8, 2019, Defendants Cigar Cabin Inc. and Yerem Khachaturyan (collectively, “Defendants”) and Plaintiff entered into a Business Loan and Security Agreement (“Agreement”). The Agreement provided for Plaintiff to provide financing to Defendants and, in consideration thereof, Defendants agreed to make 52 weekly payments. On May 28, 2021, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants Cigar Cabin Inc.; Yerem Khachaturyan aka Khachaturyan yerem aka Yerem Kachatryan; and Does 1-100, asserting the following causes of action:

1.      Breach of Written Agreement,

2.      Breach of Personal Guaranty

3.      Foreclosure of Security Agreement and Possession of Collateral,

4.      Breach of Written Agreement,

5.      Breach of Personal Guaranty,

6.      Foreclosure of Security Agreement and Possession of Collateral,

7.      Account Stated, and

8.      Open Book

On July 25, 2021, Defendants Cigar Cabin Inc. and Khachaturyan (agent for service of process) were served via substituted service.

On September 10, 2021, default was entered as to both Defendants. 

On October 5, 2021, Plaintiff dismissed Does 1-100.

On October 25, 2021, this court denied Plaintiff’s application without prejudice.

On February 15, 2022, Plaintiff re-filed their application for default judgment, which the court denied on March 28, 2022.

On June 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant application. 

Discussion

The court previously denied Plaintiff’s application for the following reasons: (1) there was confusion as to why there are two similar Agreements when the complaint only defines one Agreement and (2) Plaintiff sought 18% interest on the contract.

Plaintiff’s ‘Summary of the Case’ addresses the court’s concerns.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the court requests GRANTS Plaintiff’s application for default judgment.