Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/17/2021 at 09:49:08 (UTC).

SUN WEST MORTGAGE COMPANY INC VS MORTGAGE WORLD BANKERS INC

Case Summary

On 05/24/2013 SUN WEST MORTGAGE COMPANY INC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against MORTGAGE WORLD BANKERS INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MARC MARMARO and MARY H. STROBEL. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0002

  • Filing Date:

    05/24/2013

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MARC MARMARO

MARY H. STROBEL

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

SUN WEST MORTGAGE COMPANY INC.

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 THROUGH 20

MORTGAGE WORLD BANKERS INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

EARLY SULLIVAN WRIGHT GIZER & MCRAE LLP

 

Court Documents

SUMMONS -

5/24/2013: SUMMONS -

SUN WEST MORTGAGE COMPANY, INC.?S COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT

5/24/2013: SUN WEST MORTGAGE COMPANY, INC.?S COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT -

8/6/2013: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT -

NOTICE OF RULING REGARDING ENTRY OF DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANT MORTGAGE WORLD BANKERS, INC.

8/27/2013: NOTICE OF RULING REGARDING ENTRY OF DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANT MORTGAGE WORLD BANKERS, INC.

Minute Order -

9/20/2013: Minute Order -

NOTICE OF RULING REGARDING NOVEMBER 18, 2013 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

11/20/2013: NOTICE OF RULING REGARDING NOVEMBER 18, 2013 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Minute Order -

1/9/2014: Minute Order -

PLA1NTIFF?S STATUS REPORT FOR MAY 12, 2014 STATUS HEARING REGARDING DEFAULT JUDGMENT APPLICATION

5/9/2014: PLA1NTIFF?S STATUS REPORT FOR MAY 12, 2014 STATUS HEARING REGARDING DEFAULT JUDGMENT APPLICATION

Minute Order -

5/12/2014: Minute Order -

PLAINTIFF'S STATUS REPORT FOR MAY 12, 2014 STATUS HEARING REGARDING DEFAULT JUDGMENT APPLICATION;

5/12/2014: PLAINTIFF'S STATUS REPORT FOR MAY 12, 2014 STATUS HEARING REGARDING DEFAULT JUDGMENT APPLICATION;

DECLARATION OF GURPREET SINGH PAWWA IN SUPPORT OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT APPLICATION BY PLAINTIFF SUN WEST MORTGAGE COMPANY

5/30/2014: DECLARATION OF GURPREET SINGH PAWWA IN SUPPORT OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT APPLICATION BY PLAINTIFF SUN WEST MORTGAGE COMPANY

Minute Order -

8/20/2014: Minute Order -

SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF GURPREET SINGH PAHWA IN SUPPORT OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT APPLICATION BY PLAINTIFF SUN WEST MORTGAGE COMPANY

10/27/2014: SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF GURPREET SINGH PAHWA IN SUPPORT OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT APPLICATION BY PLAINTIFF SUN WEST MORTGAGE COMPANY

SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF STEPHEN MA IN SUPPORT OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT APPLICATION BY PLAINTIFF SUNWEST MORTGAGE COMPANY

10/27/2014: SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF STEPHEN MA IN SUPPORT OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT APPLICATION BY PLAINTIFF SUNWEST MORTGAGE COMPANY

COURT?S RULING

11/7/2014: COURT?S RULING

Minute Order -

2/20/2015: Minute Order -

JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT

2/20/2015: JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT

REQUEST FOR COURT JUDGMENT

2/23/2015: REQUEST FOR COURT JUDGMENT

36 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/23/2015
  • DocketREQUEST FOR COURT JUDGMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2015
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32; Unknown Event Type - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2015
  • DocketCOURT'S RULING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2015
  • DocketJUDGMENT BY DEFAULT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2015
  • DocketMinute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2015
  • DocketDefault Judgment; Filed by Sun West Mortgage Company, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2015
  • DocketNOTICE OF RULING REGARDING APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2015
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32; Unknown Event Type - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2015
  • DocketREQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2015
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Sun West Mortgage Company, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
70 More Docket Entries
  • 08/06/2013
  • DocketREQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2013
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2013
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/26/2013
  • DocketREQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/26/2013
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2013
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2013
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2013
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2013
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Sun West Mortgage Company, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2013
  • DocketSUN WEST MORTGAGE COMPANY, INC.S COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC510002    Hearing Date: April 16, 2021    Dept: 32

SUN WEST MORTGAGE COMPANY,

INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MORTGAGE WORLD BANKERS, INC.,

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC510002

Hearing Date: Thursday, April 16, 2021

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

DEFENDANT MORTGAGE WORLD

BANKERS’s MOTION TO SET ASIDE A VOID JUDGMENT

BACKGROUND

Defendant Mortgage World Bankers, Inc. (“Defendant”) moves the Court for an order to set aside a Judgment entered in favor of Plaintiff Sun West Mortgage Company, Inc. (“Plaintiff”). The Defendant alleges that the Judgment entered in favor of the Plaintiff was in violation of California Code of Civil Procedure (Cal. Code Civ. Proc.), section 580, because Plaintiff made no demand for a specific amount of damages, or allegation of damages sought, in the operative Complaint.

In response, Plaintiff’s opposition submits that Plaintiff made clear and specific allegations in the body of the operative Complaint that lawfully put Defendant on notice that Plaintiff was seeking damages in the amount of $607,796.91.

Defendant replied that Plaintiff misinterprets Cal. Code Civ. Proc., section 580, and Plaintiff’s mistaken belief that Defendant is arguing that the demand for specific damages must be contained in the Prayer.

LEGAL STANDARD

Cal. Code Civ. Proc., section 580(a) provides:

(a) The relief granted to the plaintiff, if there is no answer, cannot exceed that demanded in the complaint, in the statement required by Section 425.11, or in the statement provided for by Section 425.115; but in any other case, the court may grant the plaintiff any relief consistent with the case made by the complaint and embraced within the issue. The court may impose liability, regardless of whether the theory upon which liability is sought to be imposed involves legal or equitable principles.[1]

"The notice requirement of section 580 was designed to insure fundamental fairness. Surely, this would be undermined if the door were opened to speculation, no matter how reasonable it might appear in a particular case, that a prayer for damages according to proof provided adequate notice of defaulting defendant's potential liability. If no specific amount of damages is demanded, the prayer cannot insure adequate notice of the demands made upon the defendant. Consequently, a prayer for damages according to proof passes muster under section 580 only if a specific amount of damages is alleged in the body of the complaint. (Becker v. S.P.V. Construction Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 489, 494).

DISCUSSION

A. The subject judgment was consistent with Cal. Code Civ. Proc., section 580.

On December 24, 2012, Defendant and Plaintiff entered into an agreement whereby Defendant Mortgage World sold mortgage loans to Plaintiff (“Agreement”). (See Gizer Decl., Exhibit A at ¶¶7-9.) The operative Complaint relevant the pending motion included a cause of action for breach of contract involving a mortgage loan that Plaintiff demanded Defendant to repurchase. (Gizer Decl., ¶¶14-15.) To be specific, Plaintiff made a clear and specific reference in the Complaint that Plaintiff demanded Defendant to pay the entire amount owed to Plaintiff in the amount of $607,796.91. (Gizer Decl., Exhibit A, ¶15).

In addition, in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that, pursuant to the Agreement, Defendant was obligated to any damages of any nature incurred by reason of or arising out of connection with an event of default (i.e., loan default). (Gizer Decl., Exhibit A, ¶18.) Plaintiff further alleged that Defendant had breached the Agreement by paying all amount owed to Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶19.) Of course, as noted above, the entire amount owed under the Agreement was $607,796.91.

Last, the Complaint’s first prayer was “[f]or damages in an amount according to proof at trial.” Gizer Decl., Exhibit A, p. 10, line 7.) Thus, Plaintiff not only made a prayer for damages according to proof but also alleged a specific amount of damages for $607,796.91 in the body of the complaint. (Becker, supra, 27 Cal.3d at 494.) After Defendant failed to respond to the Complaint, Plaintiff sought and was granted entry of default and thereafter default judgment in the amount of $281,894.56. Consequently, the amount of the subject damages was not in excess of the damages demanded by Plaintiff but well within its ambit, consistent with Cal. Code Civ. Proc., section 580.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, Defendant Mortgage World’s Motion to Set Aside Default Judgement is NOT GRANTED.


[1] Id.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where SUN WEST MORTGAGE COMPANY INC is a litigant