Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 22STCV25561, Date: 2023-03-08 Tentative Ruling

1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing.  Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.

If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.

2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.

3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING.  The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.

Case Number: 22STCV25561    Hearing Date: March 8, 2023    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   March 8, 2023                                    

CASE NAME:           Surfx Technologies LLC v. Luke Douglas Plubell

CASE NO.:                22STCV25561

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Surfx Technologies, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of March 2, 2023.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On August 8, 2022, Plaintiff Surfx Technologies (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Luke Douglas Plubell (“Defendant.”) The complaint alleged one cause of action for alter ego liability. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff entered into a written contract, an Engagement Agreement, with Cronin Consulting, LLC in 2008. In 2017, Defendant Plubell informed Surfx that his corporate entity, Waterfront, had assumed the Engagement Agreement and would provide the same services to Plaintiff that Cronin had. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant overcharged for services, charged for services that weren’t provided, and posted charges to Plaintiff’s credit card. Plaintiff terminated the agreement in 2020, and brought an action against Waterfront on August 28, 2020. Default was entered against Waterfront in February 2021 in the amount of $75,531.10.

This complaint was brought against Plubell to apply the judgment in the prior action as alter ego of the corporate judgment debtor. Plaintiff alleges that Plubell allowed Waterfront to be suspended by the California Franchise Tax Board and that Waterfront is a shell, instrumentality, and conduit for Plubell’s individual business activities.

On August 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Related Case.

On November 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of Default, 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.)

Discussion

Proof of Service of Process: Proof of Service by Mail of the Default Judgment packet was submitted on 1/17/2023.

Request for Entry of Default: CIV-100 was filed on 11/30/22, which was GRANTED.

Prove Up: Plaintiff Surfx Technologies LLC, seeks entry of judgment against Defendant Luke Douglas Plubell in the amounts shown below:

(1)        Demand of Complaint:           $71,531.10

(2)        Interest:                                   $14,913.74

(3)        Costs:                                      $6,727.15 (5,581.20+1,145.95)

(4)        Attorneys’ Fees:                      $ 0.00

Total:                                                  $93,171.99

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

• A brief summary of the case: The Declaration of Laurence A. Weiss, filed 1/17/23, provides a brief summary of the case. The requested amount of $95,524.28 is based on the previous judgment entered for $71,531.10 (Ex. 3 of Dec. Weiss,) plus $5,581.20 in costs from the prior action (Ex. 4 of Dec. Weiss,) an interest of $14,266.33 from the original judgment, and the prejudgment costs of $1,145.95 of this action.

• Declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested: The Declaration of Laurence A. Weiss, filed 1/17/23, includes a brief summary of the case, procedural history, which includes exhibits of service of summons, and requested default.

• Interest computations as necessary: .00027397 X 761 (# days since judgment entered on 2-5-21 through 3-8-23) X $71,531.10=$14,913.74

• Memorandum of costs and disbursements: Paragraph 7 of Form CIV-100 indicates that the total costs of $145,95 were based upon: $435 for Clerk’s filing fees, $560.49 for Process server’s fees, $116.76 for EFSP fees, and $33.60 for Court Tech. Access Fees.

• Proposed form of judgment: Form JUD-100 was filed on 1/17/2023.

• Dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought: Form CIV-110 was filed on 1/17/2023.

• 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 only Exhibits filed the request for default judgment are the exhibits noting proof of service, default judgment entered previously by Judge Landin on 2/5/2021, and a memorandum of costs after judgment.

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

Conclusion:

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

            Default Judgment is GRANTED.

Moving party is to prepare updated judgment and give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             March 8, 2023             __________________________________                                                                                                                Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court