BUENOS AIRES LEASING, LLC VS KESEAN MURICE MCBATH

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: KC070044    Hearing Date: October 24, 2019    Dept: J

OSC DATE: Thursday, October 24, 2019

RE: Buenos Aires Leasing, LLC v. McBath (KC070044)

______________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiff Buenos Aires Leasing, LLC’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Buenos Aires Leasing, LLC’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

Background

On or about May 13, 2015, Plaintiff Buenos Aires Leasing (“Plaintiff”) purchased a 2011 International Pro Star, VIN #3HSCUAPR9BN196498 (“subject vehicle”) for $57,495.00. Plaintiff alleges that on or about February 15, 2017, Plaintiff and Defendant Kesean Murice McBath aka Kesean M. McBath aka Kesean McBath (“McBath”) entered into a written truck lease, whereby McBath leased the subject vehicle from Plaintiff for a 36-month term commencing March 1, 2017 through February 29, 2020 at the rate of $1,000.00/month. Plaintiff alleges that on or about March 1, 2017, McBath defaulted under the truck lease and, on or about May 2, 2018, burned the subject vehicle to a condition beyond repair. Plaintiff alleges that, notwithstanding McBath’s obligation to insure the subject vehicle, the subject vehicle was uninsured at the time it was destroyed by fire.

On December 17, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), asserting a cause of action against McBath and Does 1-10 for:

1. Breach of Contract of Bailment

On January 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Errata Regarding SAC (“Notice of Errata”). On February 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a proof of service, which reflected that McBath was substitute served with the summons, SAC and Notice of Errata on January 6, 2019.

On March 21, 2019, McBath’s default was entered.

A Case Management Conference and Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Default are set for October 24, 2019.

Discussion

Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff has submitted a supplemental declaration from Jarnail Gugga (“Gugga”) to establish the value of the subject vehicle at the time of loss. Gugga requests pre-judgment interest on the truck value in the amount of $5,170.89; however, the Judicial Council CIV-100 Request for Entry of Default submitted on August 6, 2019 does not request prejudgment interest. It is unclear, moreover, how prejudgment interest was calculated.

ANALYSIS

Yes (3/21/19) Default Entered. (JC Form CIV-100.)

Yes Dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an

application for separate judgment against specified parties under CCP

579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment. (CRC 3.1800(a)(7).)

Yes Mandatory Judicial Council Form CIV-100. (CRC 3.1800(a).)

Yes Relief sought is within amount of prayer of complaint or statement of damages. (Due Process; Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.)

Yes Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1).)

Yes Declarations in support of the judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(2).)

Yes Attorney fees if supported by contract, statute or law. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(9); Local R. 3.214; open book – CC 1717.5.)

See above __ __ Interest computations. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(3); 10% for contracts - Civ. Code 3289.)

Yes Memorandum of costs and disbursements. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(4); JC Form CIV-100 item 7.)

Yes Declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(5); JC Form CIV-100 item 8.)

Yes Proposed form of judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(6).)

N/A Statement of Damages served (P.I./wrongful death). (JC Form MC-010; CCP 425.11.)

N/A Punitive Damages are supported. Info re Defendant’s financial status. (CCP 425.115)