Judge William A. Crowfoot, Case Number: 24AHCV00448, Date: 2024-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 24AHCV00448, Date: 2024-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Galen Wilson aka Galen W. Wilson aka Galen William Wilson dba Maquina (“Defendant”) on March 1, 2024. This is an action for breach of contract and personal guaranty arising from a lease entered into between Defendant and Plaintiff’s assignor, NMM Investments, LLC (“NMM”). Plaintiff alleges Defendant entered into a five-year lease beginning on May 1, 2019. (Compl., ¶ 10.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant breached the lease by “failing to pay either in whole or in part of the rent that became due on or after November 1, 2023. (Compl., ¶ 11.) Plaintiff seeks a default judgment against Defendant for $118,206.93, consisting of $105,415.94 as demanded in the complaint, $9,299.71 in prejudgment interest at a rate of 10% per annum, $547.13 in costs, and $2,944.15 in attorney fees.

NMM’s manager, Jason Fujimoto, authenticates copies of the lease and personal guaranty and explains that on or about March 1, 2021, Defendant vacated and abandoned the premises. (Fujimoto Decl., Ex. 1; ¶ 7.) NMM re-let the premises, albeit for a lower monthly rent. (Fujimoto Decl., ¶ 7.) Fujimoto states that this rent collected from Defendant’s replacement ($38,445.20) is accounted for in Defendant’s Statement of Account. (Fujimoto Decl., Ex. 2.)

The Statement of Account reflects $105,415.94 as the net owed amount, but there are several unexplained items on this document. First, Fujimoto does not explain how the $11,000 charge in Year 2 for “Lawsuit” are damages resulting from Defendant’s alleged breach of the lease, why Plaintiff is entitled to recover that amount, and how the amount is not duplicative of the fees requested in this application. (Fujimoto Decl., p 36.) There is also an unidentified item for $2,600. Although it appears to be a credit against the amount owed by Defendant, it is not labeled and its significance is unknown.

Additionally, Plaintiff does not demonstrate how it calculated the amount of prejudgment interest owed. Plaintiff s proposed judgment seeks prejudgment interest at a rate of 10% from November 1, 2023, but there is no explanation why this particular date was chosen.

Last, the Court briefly notes that Defendant sent correspondence stating he was unable to appear telephonically at a case management conference. However, since Defendant is in default, Defendant has no right to appear in the action other than to file a motion to set aside the default. (See Devlin v. Kearny Mesa AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc. (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 381, 385-86.) Therefore, nothing in the correspondence affects Plaintiff’s application for default judgment.

Based on the foregoing, the hearing on the Default Prove-up is CONTINUED to ________________________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 3 of the Alhambra Courthouse. Any additional papers must be filed no later than 5 court days before the hearing.

William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.