Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 22PSCV00009, Date: 2023-01-30 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: 22PSCV00009    Hearing Date: January 30, 2023    Dept: O

ROADRUNNER FINANCIAL, INC., A CORPORATION vs ERNESTO ARROYO (22PSCV00138)

______________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiff’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.

Background

This is a contracts case. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Ernesto Arroyo purchased a vehicle wherein he agreed to make timely payments. However, on 8/8/2021, Defendant defaulted on the contract in the sum of $470.06 and has failed to make the $470.06 payments due thereafter. In the event of default, Plaintiff may take possession of the vehicle.

On February 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed suit.

On September 2, 2022, Doe 1 was named as Andres Trujillo.

On October 28, 2022, Defendant Ernesto Arroyo was dismissed. That same day, default was entered against Defendant Andres Trujillo and Plaintiff filed the instant application for default judgment.

Discussion

Plaintiff only seeks possession of the vehicle, but the application fails to explain Andres Trujillo’s relevancy to this action. The complaint itself and the attached contract are between Plaintiff and Ernesto Arroyo; there is no mention of Andres Trujillo. Accordingly, as it appears, Plaintiff is attempting to seek default judgment against a party who may have no liability (i.e., Andres Trujillo was not a party to the contract).

Therefore, the application is denied with prejudice because the complaint and contract—which are the documents that should give Defendant Trujillo notice of the allegations and liability against him—fail to make any mention of his name.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the application is denied with prejudice.