Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 22PSCV00282, Date: 2022-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV00282    Hearing Date: August 17, 2022    Dept: R

Mohawk Factoring, LLC v. Randy Lacy et al. (22PSCV00282)

______________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiff’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT is DENIED with prejudice.

Background

This is a complaint for money owed. Plaintiff Mohawk Factoring LLC (“Plaintiff”) alleges that Defendant became to indebted to Plaintiff in the amount of $25,836.74 for goods, wares, and materials sold by Plaintiff to Defendant.

On March 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed suit against RANDY LACY dba CARPET DISCOUNTERS and ANTHONY LITZLER, dba CARPET DISCOUNTERS for four causes of action. ‘

On May 27, 2022, default was entered as to Randy Lacy, dba Carpet Discounters; Anthony Litzler, dba Carpet Discounters.

On June 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant application.

Discussion

There are a few defects with the instant application.

First, Plaintiff seeks default judgment against individual defendants, yet the contract was signed by Randy Lacy, who is the owner/CEO of Carpet Discounters. A corporate entity is a distinct entity from that of its officers. Therefore, to the extent that it seeks to hold the individual Defendants liable for the company’s contractual liability, such remedy is improper as a matter of law.

Second, Plaintiff has not described Anthony Litzler’s involvement in the matter.

Third, the complaint does not comply with pleading standards. While the complaint asserts four causes of actions, the complaint does not identify those causes of actions. The court takes concern with this defect because it undermines the purpose of a complaint which is to put a defendant on notice of the allegations against him. Though the complaint appears to assert causes of actions related to a breach of a written agreement, the court (and presumably Defendant(s)) are left to surmise as to the exact actions. Not only does the complaint raise due process concerns, but it fails to comply with California Rules of Court 2.112 wherein each cause of action (or affirmative defense) should be separately stated, must be separately numbered, and must identify the parties asserting the claim and against whom it is asserted. (See also B. Complaints, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 6-B.)

Conclusion