Judge Yolanda Orozco, Case 21STCV36003 2022-09-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 21STCV36003, Date: 2022-09-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV36003 Hearing Date: September 28, 2022 Dept: 31

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT IS CONTINUED

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 pertaining to 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 of coverage for 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 Act covers 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, the 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 attorney’s fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (CRC Rule 3.1800.)

Discussion

Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief asserting that:

“The Safe Move Plus collision coverage purchased by Funsho Monroe under Funsho Monroe’s May 9, 2021, rental agreement with Plaintiff U-Haul Co. of California is void based on Funsho Monroe’s failure to cooperate with Plaintiffs’ investigation, refusal to submit to an examination under oath, misrepresentation, fraud, and all of the other allegations listed in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have no legal or other obligation to provide any coverage or indemnification or defense to Funsho Monroe and Gideon Royale, or any alleged authorized drivers for the claims arising out of the May 9, 2021, incident, or pay any claims made by any party.”

(See Proposed Judgment filed 09/26/22.)

The Plaintiffs initially moved for Default Judgment on July 29, 2022. (See Min. Or. 07/29/22.) Default Judgment was denied because the Court noted three deficiencies:

First, JUD-100 only sought default judgment against one defendant, rather than both Funsho Monroe and Gideon Royale.

Second, the Plaintiffs failed to provide exhibits and declarations in support of the declaratory judgment sought.

Third, the Doe Defendants had not been dismissed and judgment was not sought against them.

First, Plaintiffs’ counsel asks the Court to consider the CIV-100 form filed on May 23, 2022, for this Motion seeking a declaratory judgment against both Funsho Monroe and Gideon Royale. The Court accepts Plaintiffs’ previously filed CIV-100 form. The Court notes that Plaintiffs filed a Proposed Judgment but did not use the JUD-100 form. Unlike CIV-100, the JUD-100 form is not mandatory under the California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800. All that is required is “[a] proposed form of judgment.” (CRC rule 3.1800 subd. (a)(6).)

Therefore, the Court finds that the first deficiency is corrected, and the proper forms have been submitted.

Secondly, the Court notes that Plaintiffs have submitted two affidavits with exhibits from Timothy Hales and Richard Alexander, both of whom are fraud investigators for Viper Group, Inc., who assert that Funsho Monroe’s claimed collision did not occur. The Court finds that the affidavits support Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory judgment.

However, the Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the third requirement, the Dismissal of XYZ Corporations 1 to 100 and Does 1 to 100. The Clerk rejected the Plaintiffs’ request for Dismissal on September 27, 2022.

Accordingly, the hearing for Default Judgment is CONTINUED, and Plaintiffs are ordered to file a new request for dismissal as to the Doe Defendants.

Conclusion

The Plaintiffs request for Default Judgment is CONTINUED to October 28, 2022. Plaintiffs are ordered to file a new request for Dismissal of all Doe Defendants.