Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 21STCV32000, Date: 2023-02-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV32000    Hearing Date: February 3, 2023    Dept: 31

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs’ request for default judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

BACKGROUND

On September 30, 2021, U-Haul Co. of California, U-Haul Co. of Arizona, and ARCOA Risk Retention Group, Inc., (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment against Funsho Monroe, Gideon Royale and Does 1 through 100 arising out of a rental contract. (Compl. Exhibit A.)

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants knowingly, willfully, and intentionally conspired to defraud Plaintiffs when Defendants intentionally crashed a U-Haul truck to make an unlawful and fraudulent insurance claim. Consequently, Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief that no insurance policy issued or maintained by Plaintiffs provides any indemnity coverage to Defendant Monroe for any claim brought by Defendant Royale.

Plaintiffs assert the Court has jurisdiction over the case under Cal. Civ. Pro. Code (CCP) Section 1060 and because the Declaratory Judgment pertains to claims over $30,000.00. (Compl. ¶ 3.)

No Answer has been filed by either Defendant.

Defendant Monroe is believed to reside at 6806 Decatur PI., Hyattsville, MD 20784. Monroe was served by personal service on February 11, 2022. Default was entered against Monroe on March 24, 2022.

Defendant Royale is believed to reside at 928 South Broadway, Los Angeles, CA 90015. Royale was served by personal service on November 10, 2021. Default was entered against Royale on February 01, 2022.

On September 26, 2022, Plaintiffs renewed their Motion for Default Judgment.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP § 585 permits entry of a judgment after a Defendant has failed to timely answer after being properly served.  A party seeking judgment on the default by the Court must file a Request for Court Judgment, and: (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.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800.)

DISCUSSION  

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Nalbandian knowing, willfully, and intentionally conspired to defraud Plaintiffs when Defendants intentionally crashed a U-Haul truck in order to make an unlawful and fraudulent insurance claim. 

Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment that the additional $1,000,000 supplemental liability insurance, purchased by Defendant Gregory Nalbandian when he entered into a rental agreement with Plaintiffs, is void based on Defendant Nalbandian’s failure to cooperate, repeated misrepresentations, fraud, as well as conduct in the other allegations contained in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. (See Proposed Judgment; see also Compl. ¶ 19, Ex. A.) 

Plaintiffs assert that Defendant Nalbandian is not entitled to the benefits of the coverage related to a collision that occurred on February 25, 2021, and that the Plaintiffs have no legal obligation to provide coverage, indemnification, or defense to Defendant Nalbandian or any alleged authorized divers for claims arising out of the February 25, 2021 incident. 

Defendant Jonathan Hanasab has been dismissed from this action and Default Judgement is only sought against Defendant Gregory Nalbandian. 

Defendants submit a declaration from Donna McClurken who investigated the alleged incident and determined that Defendant Nalbandian intentionally drove into another vehicle in order to make unlawful and fraudulent insurance claims. (McClurken Decl. ¶¶ 21-24.) The declaration of Robert Mendenhall adds nothing to support the Plaintiffs’ claims of fraud and fails to include an attachment of his report as stated in his declaration. 

Plaintiffs also include the Declaration of Dan A. Evarakes who provides a summary of the case and asserts that Defendant Nalbandian failed to appear at two examinations to be conducted under oath on June 24, 2021, and July 09, 2021, for which Certificates of Nonappearance were taken. (Everakes Delc. ¶ 8.) The Certificates of Nonappearance were not attached to the declaration and the Court cannot ascertain if they were properly served on Defendant Nalbandian. Under the Rental Contract, an appearance for an examination under oath was a requirement of the Rental Contract. (Compl. ¶¶ 19, 27, Ex. A.) 

Third, the Declaration of Nonmilitary Status on the CIV-100 form is not signed. 

Lastly, the Plaintiffs have not dismissed the XYZ Corporations or Doe Defendants from this action. 

Based on the deficiencies outlined above, Default Judgment is DENIED. 

Conclusion 

Plaintiffs’ request for default judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.