Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 22PSCV00559, Date: 2023-02-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV00559    Hearing Date: February 17, 2023    Dept: O

STEVEN PEREZ vs ARTURO HERNANDEZ, et al. (22PSCV00559)

______________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiff’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT is DENIED without prejudice.

Background

This is a contracts case. Plaintiff Steven Perez (“Plaintiff”) alleges the following against Defendants Arturo Hernandez and Evelyn Hernandez (collectively, “Defendants”): In 2018, Plaintiff loaned Defendants $60,000. Defendants were to repay the loan in 6 months, in addition to $36,000 in interest. To date, Defendants have not paid Plaintiff $96,000. 

On June 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant suit.

On June 9, 2022, Defendants were served via personal service (POS filed on 07/14).

On July 14, 2022, default was entered against Defendants. That same day, Plaintiff filed its first application for entry of default judgment, which the court denied.

On October 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant application for default judgment.

Discussion

Previously, the court denied the application for four reasons. Now, one defect remains as previously noted: Plaintiff seeks to hold individual Defendants liable even though the contract was signed on behalf of an LLC. It is well-established that absent certain circumstances such as fraud, a LLC, is a “separate legal entity, distinct” from its members and managers. (See Curci Investments, LLC v. Baldwin (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 214, 220.) Therefore, absent the legal authority to hold the individual Defendants liable for the act of Primera Avocados, LLC, Plaintiff’s application fails.
 

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the application for default judgment is denied without prejudice.