Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/31/2019 at 02:58:51 (UTC).

RADHAKRISHNA KURUP VS ESPERANZA MARY RAMOS

Case Summary

On 05/10/2017 RADHAKRISHNA KURUP filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against ESPERANZA MARY RAMOS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Pomona Courthouse South located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are DUKES, ROBERT A. and GLORIA WHITE-BROWN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9304

  • Filing Date:

    05/10/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Pomona Courthouse South

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

DUKES, ROBERT A.

GLORIA WHITE-BROWN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

KURUP RADHAKRISHNA

Defendants

RAMOS ESPERANZA MARY

LARSEN ANNA RAMOS

CONCORD HOME LOAN INC

LARSEN ANNA MARIE

CONCORD HOME LOANS INC.

LARSEN ANNA MARIE AKA ANNA RAMOS LARSEN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

GHNOULY ESQ. NICHOLES W.

GHNOULY NICHOLES WILLIAM

 

Court Documents

Civil Case Cover Sheet

5/10/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (C.C.P., ? 170.6)

5/10/2017: Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (C.C.P., ? 170.6)

Complaint

5/10/2017: Complaint

Declaration

5/10/2017: Declaration

Unknown

6/30/2017: Unknown

Unknown

8/28/2017: Unknown

Minute Order

9/19/2017: Minute Order

Other -

9/19/2017: Other -

Unknown

9/22/2017: Unknown

Minute Order

12/14/2017: Minute Order

Other -

12/15/2017: Other -

Notice of Ruling

12/18/2017: Notice of Ruling

Notice of Ruling

12/18/2017: Notice of Ruling

Substitution of Attorney

4/26/2018: Substitution of Attorney

Minute Order

6/4/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

11/28/2018: Minute Order

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

12/19/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Minute Order

2/27/2019: Minute Order

32 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/27/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department J, Gloria White-Brown, Presiding; Status Conference Re: Bankruptcy - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Status Conference Re: Bankruptcy)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2018
  • Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/28/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department J, Gloria White-Brown, Presiding; Status Conference Re: Bankruptcy - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/28/2018
  • Minute Order ((Status Conference Re: Bankruptcy)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department J; Jury Trial (Jury Trial; Vacated) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2018
  • Notice; Filed by Radhakrishna Kurup (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department J; Final Status Conference (Final Status Conference; Not held) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-06-04 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2018
  • Notice; Filed by Anna Marie Larsen (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
34 More Docket Entries
  • 06/30/2017
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by Radhakrishna Kurup (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2017
  • at 09:00 AM in Department O; Unknown Event Type - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2017
  • Minute order entered: 2017-05-16 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/11/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2017
  • Summons (on Complaint)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2017
  • Declaration (OF VENUE); Filed by Radhakrishna Kurup (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2017
  • Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Radhakrishna Kurup (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2017
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Radhakrishna Kurup (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Radhakrishna Kurup (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2001
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Radhakrishna Kurup (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: KC069304    Hearing Date: May 26, 2021    Dept: J

OSC DATE: Wednesday, May 26, 2021

RE: Kurup v. Ramos, et al. (KC069304)

______________________________________________________________________________

 

Plaintiff Radhakrishna Kurup’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Radhakrishna Kurup’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

Background

Plaintiff Radhakrishna Kurup (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: Esperanza Mary Ramos (“Ramos”) and Anna Marie Larsen aka Anna Ramos Larsen (“Larsen”) are sisters and the founders, officers and directors of Concord Home Loans, Inc. (“Concord”); Ramos is Concord’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer and Larsen acts as corporate secretary.

On or about September 1, 2012, Plaintiff and Ramos entered into a signed written agreement (“Loan #1”), wherein Plaintiff loaned Ramos $15,000.00 in exchange for Ramos’ agreement to pay Plaintiff in full on or before August 31, 2013, along with 11.99%/annum interest from September 1, 2012, and a $3,500.00 fee, for a total of $20,500.00. Plaintiff and Ramos entered into another signed written agreement (“Loan #2”) on or about September 1, 2012, wherein Plaintiff loaned Ramos $10,000.00 in exchange for Ramos’ agreement to pay Plaintiff in full on or before August 31, 2013, along with 11.99%/annum interest from September 1, 2012, and a $3,500.00 fee, for a total of $13,599.01. Plaintiff and Ramos entered into a third signed written agreement (“Loan #3”) on or about February 4, 2013, wherein Plaintiff loaned Ramos $5,000.00 in exchange for Ramos’ agreement to pay Plaintiff in full on or before August 4, 2013, along with 12.99%/annum interest from September 1, 2012, and a $2,500.00 fee, for a total of $7,824.72.

On August 4, 2013, Ramos breached Loan #3 by failing to repay any part of the loan. On August 31, 2013, Ramos breached Loans #1 and #2 by failing to repay any part of same. Over the course of the following months/years, Plaintiff made repeated inquiries and demands on Ramos for repayment, but Ramos engaged in numerous delay tactics.

On May 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Ramos, Larsen, Concord and Does 1-50 for:

  1. Breach of Contract (v. Ramos only)

  2. Breach of Contract (v. Ramos only)

  3. Breach of Contract (v. Ramos only)

  4. Fraud (v. Ramos only)

  5. Breach of Contract

  6. Breach of Contract

  7. Breach of Contract

  8. Fraud

On August 28, 2017, Concord’s default was entered. On April 30, 2018, a “Notice of Stay of Proceedings” was filed by Larsen. On May 9, 2018, a “Notice of Stay of Proceedings” was filed by Ramos. On June 4, 2018, the case was stayed.

An Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment is set for May 26, 2021.

Discussion

Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. The following defects are noted:

  1. The court does not appear to be in possession of a Judicial Council Form CIV-100

(“Request for Court Judgment”), with completed Paragraphs 2 (i.e., “Judgment to be entered”) and 7 (i.e., “Memorandum of costs”). The court is aware that default was entered against Concord on August 28, 2017.

  1. Plaintiff’s supplemental declaration does not state whether Ramos’ purported repeated

promises to pay the outstanding debt were oral or written (aside from Exhibit A attached thereto). It appears that the communication referenced in ¶ 2(H) was written. The court requests that any written communications between the parties be provided.

Plaintiff is instructed to submit a full and complete application for default judgment for review in the future. The court will not review prior submissions in conjunction with supplemental documents.

ANALYSIS

Yes (8/28/17) 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).)

No Mandatory Judicial Council Form CIV-100/Form CIV-105. (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).)

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

Yes _________ _ Interest computations. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(3); 10% for contracts - Civ. Code 3289.)

N/A 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).)

Yes Statement of Damages served (P.I./wrongful death). (JC Form CIV-050; CCP 425.11.)

See above Punitive Damages are supported. Info re Defendant’s financial status. (CCP 425.115)

Case Number: KC069304    Hearing Date: February 08, 2021    Dept: J

OSC DATE: Monday, February 8, 2021

RE: Kurup v. Ramos, et al. (KC069304)

______________________________________________________________________________

 

Plaintiff Radhakrishna Kurup’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Radhakrishna Kurup’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

Background

Plaintiff Radhakrishna Kurup (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: Esperanza Mary Ramos (“Ramos”) and Anna Marie Larsen aka Anna Ramos Larsen (“Larsen”) are sisters and the founders, officers and directors of Concord Home Loans, Inc. (“Concord”); Ramos is Concord’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer and Larsen acts as corporate secretary.

On or about September 1, 2012, Plaintiff and Ramos entered into a signed written agreement (“Loan #1”), wherein Plaintiff loaned Ramos $15,000.00 in exchange for Ramos’ agreement to pay Plaintiff in full on or before August 31, 2013, along with 11.99%/annum interest from September 1, 2012, and a $3,500.00 fee, for a total of $20,500.00. Plaintiff and Ramos entered into another signed written agreement (“Loan #2”) on or about September 1, 2012, wherein Plaintiff loaned Ramos $10,000.00 in exchange for Ramos’ agreement to pay Plaintiff in full on or before August 31, 2013, along with 11.99%/annum interest from September 1, 2012, and a $3,500.00 fee, for a total of $13,599.01. Plaintiff and Ramos entered into a third signed written agreement (“Loan #3”) on or about February 4, 2013, wherein Plaintiff loaned Ramos $5,000.00 in exchange for Ramos’ agreement to pay Plaintiff in full on or before August 4, 2013, along with 12.99%/annum interest from September 1, 2012, and a $2,500.00 fee, for a total of $7,824.72.

On August 4, 2013, Ramos breached Loan #3 by failing to repay any part of the loan. On August 31, 2013, Ramos breached Loans #1 and #2 by failing to repay any part of same. Over the course of the following months/years, Plaintiff made repeated inquiries and demands on Ramos for repayment, but Ramos engaged in numerous delay tactics.

On May 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Ramos, Larsen, Concord and Does 1-50 for:

  1. Breach of Contract (v. Ramos only)

  2. Breach of Contract (v. Ramos only)

  3. Breach of Contract (v. Ramos only)

  4. Fraud (v. Ramos only)

  5. Breach of Contract

  6. Breach of Contract

  7. Breach of Contract

  8. Fraud

On August 28, 2017, Concord’s default was entered. On April 30, 2018, a “Notice of Stay of Proceedings” was filed by Larsen. On May 9, 2018, a “Notice of Stay of Proceedings” was filed by Ramos. On June 4, 2018, the case was stayed.

An Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment is set for February 8, 2021.

Discussion

Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. The following defects are noted:

  1. The court does not appear to be in possession of a Judicial Council Form CIV-100.

  2. Plaintiff represents that Ramos and Larsen both received Orders of Discharge in their

respective bankruptcy proceedings; however, Plaintiff has not filed a “Request for Dismissal” as to them.

  1. Plaintiff has not provided a calculation re: interest.

  2. Plaintiff’s declaration does not contain any information as to Ramos’ purported repeated

promises to pay the outstanding debt, as set forth in ¶12 of the complaint. Plaintiff’s declaration does not include an unequivocal statement that he has never been paid any of the monies loaned.

  1. Plaintiff purports to seek punitive damages. The proof of service filed June 30, 2017 as

to Concord reflects that Concord was served with a “Statement of Damages.” However, a default judgment which includes punitive damages requires plaintiffs to provide evidence of defendants’ net worth. (See Cummings Medical Corp. v. Occupational Medical Corp. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1291, 1298 [“Evidence of the defendant’s financial condition is relevant to a punitive damages award in two ways. ‘[O]bviously, the function of deterrence. . . will not be served if the wealth of the defendant allows him to absorb the award with little or no

discomfort . . . By the same token, of course, the function of punitive damages is not served by an award which, in light of the defendant’s wealth and the gravity of the particular act, exceeds the level necessary to punish and deter.’”].)

ANALYSIS

Yes (8/28/17) Default Entered. (JC Form CIV-100.)

See above 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).)

See above Mandatory Judicial Council Form CIV-100/Form CIV-105. (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).)

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

No _________ _ Interest computations. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(3); 10% for contracts - Civ. Code 3289.)

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

See above 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).)

Yes Statement of Damages served (P.I./wrongful death). (JC Form CIV-050; CCP 425.11.)

No Punitive Damages are supported. Info re Defendant’s financial status. (CCP 425.115)