Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 22STCV17692, Date: 2023-03-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV17692    Hearing Date: March 3, 2023    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   March 3, 2023                        

CASE NAME:            LVNV Funding LLC v. Grigor Demirtchian

CASE NO.:                22STCV17692

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

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.)

Discussion

Proof of Service of Process: Proof of Service by Mail as to the Summons, Complaint, etc. was filed on 6/24/2022. It indicates that service was effected via personal service. 

Request for Entry of Default: CIV-105 was filed on 9/12/2022. Entry of Default was GRANTED on 9/12/2022.

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

(1)        Demand of Complaint:           $ 80,953.50

(2)        Interest:                                   $ 0.00

(3)        Costs:                                      $ 585.00

(4)        Attorneys’ Fees:                      $ 0.00 

Total:                                                  $ 81.538.50

In support, the following documents have been provided:

·         A brief summary of the case: The Declaration of Dimeshia Hook provides a brief summary of the matter.

·         Declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested: Declaration of Dimeshia Hook was filed on 9/12/2022. Dimeshia Hook is an authorized representative for Plaintiff. The Declaration contains four Exhibits.

·         Interest computations as necessary: N/A as Plaintiff waived interest.

·         Memorandum of costs and disbursements: Paragraph 10 of CIV-105 states that $435 is for Clerk’s filing fees and $150 is for Process server’s fees.

·         Proposed form of judgment: Form JUD-100 was filed on 9/12/2022.

·         Dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought: Form CIV-110 was filed on 9/12/2022.

·         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: Exhibits A-D are attached to Dimeshia Hook.

·         Request for attorneys’ fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (CRC Rule 3.1800.): N/A as Plaintiff waived attorney fees.

Previously, the Court identified an issue with addresses. The Proof of Service of Summons indicates that Defendant was served at an address on Monterey Road in Glendale. Exhibit D of the Hook Declaration indicates under Borrow information for Defendant that the address is a PO Box in Glendale, but then later states that borrower’s address from charge-off creditor’s records is an apartment on Winona Boulevard in Los Angeles. The Court has reviewed the Account Summary Report dated 2-1-22 prepared by Resurgent Capital attached to the 12-22-22 Declaration Pursuant to CCP 585 that identifies the source of information for the apartment on Winona Boulevard was from historical records kept by Citibank. The Court also reviewed the 6/17/22 proof of personal service of defendant by a registered process server who declares that defendant identified himself as the named defendant. With this evidence, the Court is satisfied that Due Process has been satisfied and that Defendant was adequately put on Notice of these proceedings and the amount of judgment sought.

Conclusion:

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

Default is GRANTED in the amount of $81,538.50.  

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2023                                     __________________________________                                                                                                                Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court