On 04/08/2019 LATOYIA G FURLOW filed a Property - Other Property Fraud lawsuit against RODERICK CULPEPPER. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WENDY CHANG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
*******3391
04/08/2019
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Spring Street Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
WENDY CHANG
FURLOW LATOYIA G.
A & M FINANCIAL SERVICES
CULPEPPER RODERICK
CAH FINANCIAL SERVICES
BOWEN CHUMAHAN
BUTLER LTANYA MATILDE
9/4/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service
11/7/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
11/21/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice To Preserve the Right to Punitive Damages on a Default Judgement
12/20/2019: Answer - Answer
2/10/2020: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail
2/21/2020: Notice of Rejection - Ex Parte Application Without Hearing - Notice of Rejection - Ex Parte Application Without Hearing for Publication re: Roderick
3/4/2020: RETURNED MAIL - RETURNED MAIL
6/4/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment
6/4/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
6/16/2020: Answer - Answer
6/18/2020: Motion to Vacate (name extension) - Motion to Vacate MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT
9/9/2020: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT; DECLARATION OF ATTORNEY CHUMAHAN BOWEN; DECLARATION OF LATOYIA FURLOW
9/23/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default (CCP 473.5); Tr...) of 09/23/2020
6/3/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service
6/3/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service
6/26/2019: Amended Complaint - Amended Complaint
4/8/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case
4/8/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint
Hearing04/11/2022 at 10:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service
Hearing07/21/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 07/21/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26
DocketOn the Amended Complaint (1st) filed by Latoyia G. Furlow on 06/26/2019, Default entered on 06/04/2020, Vacated - .
DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default (CCP 473.5); Tr...)
DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default (CCP 473.5); Tr...) of 09/23/2020; Filed by: Clerk
DocketHearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default (CCP 473.5) scheduled for 09/23/2020 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 09/23/2020; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted
DocketTrial Setting Conference scheduled for 09/23/2020 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 09/23/2020; Result Type to Held
DocketOpposition PLAINTIFF?S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT?S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT; DECLARATION OF ATTORNEY CHUMAHAN BOWEN; DECLARATION OF LATOYIA FURLOW; Filed by: Latoyia G. Furlow (Plaintiff)
DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by: Latoyia G. Furlow (Plaintiff); As to: Cah Financial Services (Defendant); A & M Financial Services (Defendant)
DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Latoyia G. Furlow (Plaintiff); As to: Cah Financial Services (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 05/15/2019; Service Cost: 39.11; Service Cost Waived: No
DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Latoyia G. Furlow (Plaintiff); As to: A & M Financial Services (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 05/14/2019; Service Cost: 69.21; Service Cost Waived: No
DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Latoyia G. Furlow (Plaintiff); As to: Roderick Culpepper (Defendant); Cah Financial Services (Defendant); A & M Financial Services (Defendant)
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Latoyia G. Furlow (Plaintiff); As to: Roderick Culpepper (Defendant); Cah Financial Services (Defendant); A & M Financial Services (Defendant)
DocketComplaint; Filed by: Latoyia G. Furlow (Plaintiff); As to: Roderick Culpepper (Defendant); Cah Financial Services (Defendant); A & M Financial Services (Defendant)
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 04/11/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/05/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94
DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Case Number: 19STLC03391 Hearing Date: September 23, 2020 Dept: 26
Furlow v. A&M
Financial Services, et al MOTION TO VACATE ENTRY OF DEFAULT (CCP
§ 473(b)) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant A&M Financial Services’ Motion to Vacate
Default is GRANTED. THE DEFAULT ENTERED ON JUNE 4, 2020 IS HEREBY VACATED.
DEFENDANT A&M FINANCIAL SERVICES TO FILE AND SERVE HIS ANSWER WITHIN 20
DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. ANALYSIS: On April 8, 2019, Plaintiff Latoyia G. Furlow
(“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of contract against Defendants
A&M Financial
Service (“Defendant A&M”), Cah Financial Services, and Roderick Culpepper.
According to the proof of substitute service, Defendant A&M was served effective
May 25, 2019. (Proof of Service, filed 6/3/19.) On June 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint and re-served Defendant A&M personally on July 8, 2019. When
Defendant A&M failed to respond to the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff
entered its default on June 4, 2020. Defendant A&M sought to file an Answer
on June 12, 2020 and then filed the instant Motion to Vacate Entry of Default
on June 18, 2020. Plaintiff filed an opposition on September 9, 2020. Discussion Defendant A&M Financial moves for relief from the
default judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 473,
subdivision (b), under which an application for relief must be made no more
than six months after entry of the order from which relief is sought and must
be accompanied by an affidavit of fault attesting to the mistake, inadvertence,
surprise or neglect of the moving party or its attorney. (Code Civ. Proc., §
473, subd. (b); English v. IKON Business Solutions (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th
130, 143.) The Motion must also be accompanied by a copy of the moving party’s
responsive pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).) The Motion was initially filed less than six months after
entry of default, making it timely under the moving statute. It is also
accompanied by a declaration from Defendant A&M Financial’s principal,
Jerry Anderson, who states that upon learning of this action, he questioned
Defendant Culpepper. (Motion, Anderson Decl., ¶¶1-3.) Defendant Culpepper
explained to Anderson that Plaintiff was his client and that he would handle
the situation. (Id. at ¶3.) Anderson checked in with Defendant Culpepper
periodically and was assured that the action was being handled. (Id. at
¶4.) Anderson, who is 81 years old, has never been involved in a lawsuit and
believed Defendant Culpepper would take care of the situation without his
involvement. (Id. at ¶5.) Upon receipt of the request for entry of
default, Anderson realized Defendant Culpepper had not informed the Court
A&M Financial was not involved with Plaintiff and retained counsel to
vacate the entry of default. (Id. at ¶6.) In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant A&M
Financial’s reliance on Defendant Culpepper was unreasonable and inexcusable
because Anderson had notice of the action but continued to speak only to
Defendant Culpepper about it. Plaintiff’s counsel also declares he sought to
speak to Defendant A&M Financial directly about this case, but his calls
were not returned. (Motion, Bowen Decl., ¶9.) Additionally, Plaintiff’s tax
returns for 2016 and 2017, on which this action is based, are signed for by
Defendant Culpepper on behalf of A&M Financial. (Motion, Furlow Decl.,
Exhs. A and B.) “Excusable neglect” is generally defined as an error “ ‘ “a
reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances might have
made.” ’ ” (Ambrose v. Michelin North America, Inc. (2005) 134
Cal.App.4th 1350, 1354 (citing Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc.
(2002) 28 Cal.4th 249, 258.) Anderson declares that he was rented office space
to Defendant Culpepper and they had no employer-employee relationship. (Motion,
Anderson Decl., ¶2.) Anderson further states that Defendant Culpepper handles
his own clients and informed Anderson that Plaintiff was Culpepper’s client. (Id.
¶3.) The parties’ evidence is in conflict regarding the extent of
Defendant A&M Financial involvement in the preparation of Plaintiff’s tax
returns. Plaintiff’s opposition, however, raises crucial discrepancies. Despite
Defendant Culpepper’s declaration that he never worked for A&M Financial
and has never done business as A&M Financial, Plaintiff’s 2016 and 2017 tax
returns bear his name as working for the firm “A&M Financial Services.”
Plaintiff’s counsel also disavows Defendant Culpepper’s contention that they
were making progress towards a resolution of the case. (Motion, Culpepper
Decl., ¶4.) According to Plaintiff’s counsel, it was a struggle to get ahold of
either Defendant. (Id. at ¶¶8-11.) After Culpepper provided a false address he
has been evading Plaintiff’s counsel’s attempts at communication. (Id.
at ¶¶11-14.) The Court has since denied Plaintiff’s application to serve
Defendant Culpepper by publication. (Id. at ¶14.) The discrepancies in the parties’ accounts seem to originate
from Defendant Culpepper. He signed the 2016 and 2017 tax returns for Plaintiff
with A&M Financial Services listed as the firm, but now disavows any
relationship with Defendant A&M Financial. Similarly, Defendant Culpepper stated
that the parties were working towards a settlement, which is contradicted by
Plaintiff’s counsel. This supports the idea that Anderson was reassured by
Defendant Culpepper that he would take care of the action. Defendant Culpepper
expressly admits to making these reassurances. Under these circumstances, the Court finds A&M Financial
had demonstrated excusable neglect in failing to respond to the Complaint. Conclusion Defendant A&M Financial Services’
Motion to Vacate Default is GRANTED. THE DEFAULT ENTERED ON JUNE 4, 2020 IS
HEREBY VACATED. DEFENDANT A&M FINANCIAL SERVICES TO FILE AND SERVE HIS
ANSWER WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. Court clerk to give notice.