Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC530228    Hearing Date: December 19, 2019    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Plaintiff Albert Kirakosian (“Plaintiff”) requests entry of default judgment against Defendants Sevak Avakian (“Sevak”), American Best Engineering, Inc., and Avakian Engineering, Inc. (Avakian Engineering).[1]

First, the Court notes that Plaintiff has again failed to file mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Application to Enter Default) (Form CIV-100). Additionally, the Proposed Judgment refers to attachment 5(a) but there is no such attachment.

Second, Plaintiff has not provided any evidence as to the claim against Sevak or Avakian Engineering. For example, there is no evidence of any contract signed by Sevak as an individual or by Avakian Engineering; there is no evidence identified regarding any fraud by Sevak and Avakian Engineering. To the extent that a claim is being made regarding alter ego, there is no evidence presented as to alter ego.

Third, even if a fraud cause of action was supported by evidence, there is no meaningful evidence of defendants’ financial condition to support an award for punitive damages. (Adams v. Murakami (1991) 54 Cal.3d 105, 114 [evidence of defendant’s financial condition required to support punitive damages]; Lara v. Cadag (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1061, 1064-1065 [meaningful evidence required and evidence of earnings is not by itself sufficient].)

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request for default judgment is denied without prejudice. The Clerk will discuss with Plaintiff a schedule for submission of a new default judgment package.

DATED: December 19, 2019 ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

Case Number: BC530228    Hearing Date: December 06, 2019    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Plaintiff Albert Kirakosian (“Plaintiff”) requests entry of default judgment against Defendants Sevak Avakian, American Best Engineering, Inc., and Avakian Engineering, Inc.[1]

The Court notes a number of defects with Plaintiff’s submission. First, Plaintiff failed to file mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Application to Enter Default) (Form CIV-100) and failed to file a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under Code of Civil Procedure section 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment. Second, the proposed judgment indicates that prejudgment interest is being requested but no declaration supporting the computation of prejudgment interest was submitted. (CRC 3.1800(a).) Third, the Court notes that Plaintiff has provided a declaration explaining loss or unavailability of the original promissory note, but Plaintiff failed to include a proposed order to accept a copy in lieu of the original. (CRC 3.1806.)

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request for default judgment is denied without prejudice. The Clerk will discuss with Plaintiff a schedule for submission of a new default judgment package.

DATED: December 6, 2019 ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

Case Number: BC530228    Hearing Date: October 24, 2019    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Plaintiff Albert Kirakosian (“Plaintiff”) requests entry of default judgment against Defendants Sevak Avakian, American Best Engineering, Inc., and Avakian Engineering, Inc.

The Court notes a number of defects with Plaintiff’s submission. First, the only document filed in support of the request for default judgment was Plaintiff’s declaration. Plaintiff failed to file mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Application to Enter Default) (Form CIV-100), a proposed form of judgment, a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under Code of Civil Procedure section 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment, and any information regarding a request for attorney fees, prejudgment interest, and costs. (CRC 3.1800(a).) Second, this appears to be an action on a promissory note; however, Plaintiff failed to include the original of the promissory note. In lieu of the original, Plaintiff may also provide a declaration explaining loss or unavailability, along with a proposed order to accept a copy in lieu of the original. (CRC 3.1806.) Third, Plaintiff cannot obtain a default judgment against Sevak Avakian while the bankruptcy stay is in place.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request for default judgment is denied without prejudice. The Clerk will discuss with Plaintiff a schedule for submission of a new default judgment package.

DATED: October 24, 2019 ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court