Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 20STCV44775, Date: 2022-08-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV44775    Hearing Date: August 2, 2022    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   August 2, 2022                                   

CASE NAME:           Cadles of West Virginia, LLC v. 24/7 Appliance Repair, Inc., et al.  

CASE NO.:                20STCV44775

PLAITIFF’S OSC RE: DEFAULT & DEFAULT JUDGMENT  

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Cadles of West Virginia, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None filed as of July 28, 2022.

TENTATIVE RULING:

OSC Re: Default Judgment is GRANTED.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On November 23, 2020, Plaintiff Cadles of West Virginia, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against 24/7 Appliance Repair Inc., Vachagan Bocholyan, Does 1 through X, and Roe Corporations XI through XX. The complaint alleged one cause of action: Breach of Negotiable Instrument. The complaint alleges that the Defendant obtained a Business Loan from Citibank N.A. and borrowed monies and made payments on it. Later, Plaintiff purchased the Business Loan, and all future payments were to be made to Plaintiff. Plaintiff sent multiple correspondences to Defendant about outstanding loan payments, and Defendant has not responded or made payments.

On March 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed an Application for Publication.

On August 10, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of Default, which was REJECTED.

On August 19, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of Default as to 24/7 Appliance Repair Inc., which was GRANTED.

On February 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of Default as to Vachagan Bocholyan, which was REJECTED.

On April 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of Default as to Vachagan Bocholyan, which was GRANTED.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP § 585 permits entry of a judgment after a Defendant fails to timely answer following proper service of process. A party seeking judgment on the default by the Court must file a Request for Court Judgment, and provide: (1) a brief summary of the case; (2) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3) interest computations as necessary; (4) a memorandum of costs and disbursements; (5) a proposed form of judgment; (6) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought; (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under CCP § 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (8) exhibits as necessary; and (9) a request for attorneys’ fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (CRC Rule 3.1800.)

ANALYSIS:

Proof of Service of Process: Proof of Service by Mail filed on 12/3/2021; Proof of Publication filed on 1/13/2022 and 2/4/2022.

Request for Entry of Default: CIV-100 entered as to Defendant 24/7 Appliance Repair, Inc., filed and entered on 8/19/2021; CIV-100 entered as to Defendant as to Vachagan Bocholyan filed and entered on 4/14/2022.

Prove Up: Plaintiff seeks entry of judgment against Defendants in the amounts shown below:

(1)        Demand of Complaint:           $ 81,856.70

(2)        Interest:                                   $ 42,065.43

(3)        Costs:                                      $ 1,208.95

(4)        Attorneys’ Fees:                      $ 2,527.13      

Total:                                                  $ 127,658.21

In support of Plaintiff’s request, the following documents have been submitted:

• A brief summary of the case: A brief summary of the case was filed on June 17, 2022. It provides that Defendant applied for and obtained a commercial credit line/loan for $80,000 from Citibank, N.A. Defendants made payments until August 29, 2016. Citibank sold all rights, title and interest it had in the loan to Plaintiff on March 22, 2017.

• Declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested: Declaration of Assly Sayyar, the Plaintiff’s attorney. This declaration also contains exhibits. Exhibit 1 is a copy of the Business Loan and Exhibit 2 is a copy of the search performed on the Department of Defense Manpower Data Center to confirm that the Defendant is not active military; Declaration of Michael Bowman was filed, who is the account officer for the Plaintiff. The declaration also includes two exhibits: the loan documents and proof of the assignment of the loan documents.

• Interest computations as necessary: The Declaration of Michael Bowman provides the interest computations. In the event of a default, an interest rate of 8% points over the Wall Street Journal prime rate. (Dec. Bowman ¶ 6). By May 10, 2017, the accrued interest was $4,059.42, interest accruing at $16.10 per day and a late charge of $455. (Id. at ¶10). By August 20, 2020, interest had totaled $24,917.58, with interest accruing at $14.44 per day and late charges of $1,855. (Id. at ¶11). By November 4, 2020, interest had totaled $42,065.43, with interest accruing at $24.99 per day and late charges of $1,855. (Id. at ¶ 12).

• Memorandum of costs and disbursements: ¶ 7 of Civ-100 indicates that the total of $1,208.95 is based on $435 of clerk’s filing fees, $321.00 for process server’s fees, $402 for publication service, and $50 for service fee for SOS service.

• Proposed form of judgment: Form JUD-100 was filed on June 17, 2022.

• Dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought: Form CIV-110 was filed on June 17, 2022; dismissal was entered on June 20, 2022.

• Dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under CCP § 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment: N/A

• Exhibits as necessary: The Declaration of Assly Sayyar has the Business Loan attached as Exhibit 1.

• Request for attorneys’ fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (CRC Rule 3.1800.): Plaintiff requests $2,527.13, which is based on subsection (d) of the following local Rule 3.214, ($1,890 plus 2% excess over $50,000, which is $637.13 (Dec. Sayyar ¶ 8).

The Attorney’s Fees calculated according to Local Rule 3.2 would follow the fee schedule as follows:

(A) From $0,01 to $ 1„000.00. 15% with a minimum of $75.00

(B) From $ 1,000.01 to $ 10,000.00, $ 150.00 plus 6% of the excess over $ 1,000.00

(C) From $ 10,000.01 to $50,000.00, $690.00 plus 3% of the excess over $ 10,000.00

(D) From $50,000.01 to $ 100,000.00, $ 1,890 plus 2% of the excess over $ 50,000.00

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:

            The Request for Default Judgment is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             August 3, 2022                        ___________________________________

                                                                                    Upinder Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court