This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/05/2021 at 03:08:27 (UTC).

U.S. FOODS, A CORPORATION VS PINTS & QUARTS GASTRO PUB, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 11/13/2020 U S FOODS, A CORPORATION filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against PINTS QUARTS GASTRO PUB, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is KEVIN C. BRAZILE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******3699

  • Filing Date:

    11/13/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

KEVIN C. BRAZILE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

U.S. FOODS A CORPORATION

Defendants

NIEHOUSE DONNA M

REESE CARY

PINTS & QUARTS GASTRO PUB LLC A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DBA PINTS & QUARTS GASTRO PUB & PIZZERIA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

GARWACKI JR. RAY

 

Court Documents

Complaint

11/13/2020: Complaint

Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

11/13/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

Civil Case Cover Sheet

11/13/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

11/13/2020: Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

Notice of Case Management Conference

11/19/2020: Notice of Case Management Conference

Order to Show Cause Failure to File Proof of Service

11/19/2020: Order to Show Cause Failure to File Proof of Service

Proof of Personal Service

11/30/2020: Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

12/1/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

12/1/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

12/22/2020: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Case Management Statement

3/8/2021: Case Management Statement

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

3/25/2021: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

3/22/2021: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

3/17/2021: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Case Management Statement

5/12/2021: Case Management Statement

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: RESPONSE ...)

5/24/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: RESPONSE ...)

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

5/21/2021: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

5 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/17/2021
  • Hearing08/17/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Default Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 20, Kevin C. Brazile, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 20, Kevin C. Brazile, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Response or Default) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Case Management Conference; Order to Show Cause Re: Response ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2021
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by U.S. FOODS, a Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2021
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by U.S. FOODS, a Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 20, Kevin C. Brazile, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Rescheduled by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 20, Kevin C. Brazile, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Response or Default) - Not Held - Rescheduled by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2021
  • DocketNotice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2021
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by U.S. FOODS, a Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
2 More Docket Entries
  • 12/22/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by U.S. FOODS, a Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by U.S. FOODS, a Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2020
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by U.S. FOODS, a Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Failure to File Proof of Service; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2020
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by U.S. FOODS, a Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by U.S. FOODS, a Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by U.S. FOODS, a Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 20STCV43699 Hearing Date: September 17, 2021 Dept: 20

Ruling

\r\n\r\n

Judge Kevin C. Brazile

\r\n\r\n

Department 20

\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n

Date: Friday,\r\nSeptember 17, 2021

\r\n\r\n

Case Name: U.S. Foods v. Pints\r\n& Quarts Gastro Pub, LLC, et al.

\r\n\r\n

Case No.: 20STCV43699

\r\n\r\n

Hearing: Non-Appearance\r\nCase Review re: Default Judgment

\r\n\r\n

Notice: OK

\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n

Ruling: Plaintiff’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment is GRANTED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff to\r\ngive notice of this Order and the concurrently executed Judgment.

\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n

BACKGROUND

\r\n\r\n

On November 13, 2020, Plaintiff U.S. Foods filed a\r\nComplaint against Pints & Quarts Gastro Pub, LLC dba Pints & Quarts\r\nGastro Pub & Pizzeria ("P&Q"), Donna M. Niehouse, Cary Reese\r\nand Does 1-10, stating causes of cation for breach of contract, breach of\r\nguaranty, and common counts for open book account, account stated and\r\nreasonable value arising out of Niehouse\'s application to Plaintiff for a\r\ncredit line for P&Q, subsequent purchases thereunder, and the personal\r\nguaranty of the credit line by Niehouse and Reese.

\r\n\r\n

On March 22, 2021, the clerk entered the default of\r\nP&Q and Cary Reese.

\r\n\r\n

On May 21, 2021, the clerk entered the default of\r\nDonna Niehouse.

\r\n\r\n

On June 16, 2021, Plaintiff dismissed Does 1-10 and\r\nfiled a request for entry of default judgment against P&Q, Reese and\r\nNiehouse in the amount of $42,919.19.

\r\n\r\n

On July 8, 2021, the Court denied the Request for\r\nEntry of Default Judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff calculated prejudgment\r\ninterest at 18% per annum in excess of the constitutional limitation of 10% per\r\nannum for prejudgment interest.

\r\n\r\n

On September 7, 2021, Plaintiff filed a request for entry\r\nof default judgment against P&Q, Reese and Niehouse in the amount of $39,278.24,\r\nconsisting of damages of $31,238.26, prejudgment interest of $5,897.84,\r\nattorney\'s fees of $1,327.14, and costs of $815.00.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS

\r\n\r\n

CCP § 585 permits entry of a judgment after a defendant’s\r\ndefault has been entered. CRC Rule 3.1800(a) requires a party seeking default\r\njudgment by court judgment must file a Request for Court Judgment (Form\r\nCIV-100) and: (1) a brief summary of the case; (2) declarations or other\r\nadmissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3) interest\r\ncomputations as necessary; (4) a memorandum of costs and disbursements; (5) a\r\ndeclaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant against whom judgment is\r\nsought; (6) a proposed form of judgment (optional Form JUD-100); (7) a\r\ndismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application\r\nfor separate judgment under CCP sec. 579, supported by a showing of grounds for\r\neach judgment; (8) exhibits as necessary; and (9) a request for attorneys’ fees\r\nif allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties.

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff requests a total judgment of $39,278.24,\r\nconsisting of damages of $31,238.26, prejudgment interest of $5,897.84 at 10%\r\nper annum, attorney\'s fees of $1,327.14 pursuant to LASC Local Rule\r\n3.214, and costs of $815.00. Plaintiff used mandatory forms in seeking\r\ndefault judgment, dismissed Doe defendants, and provided supporting evidence\r\nand declarations. The judgment sought is consistent with the demands of the\r\nComplaint for “the sum of $31,238.26, together with accrued interest thereon at\r\nthe rate of 10% per annum from October 4, 2019,” plus reasonable attorney’s\r\nfees and costs. (Complaint, para. 21.)

\r\n\r\n

The evidence and allegations admitted by default establish\r\nthe existence of the loans at issue and the principal amounts due thereunder. (See\r\nKravitz Decl., para. 4, Exh. 1 (P&Q\'s Credit Application dated November 13,\r\n2013); para. 9, Exh. 2 (Niehouse and Reese\'s Personal Guaranty of the Credit\r\nLine); para. 10, Exh. 3 (invoices for business credit line); Exh. 4 (Statement\r\nof Account for business credit line); see also Falahati v. Kondo\r\n(2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 823, 829 fn. 3 (default admits material, well-pleaded allegations of the complaint);\r\nComplaint, para. 10, 12-15) Plaintiff now properly calculates\r\nprejudgment interest at 10% per annum, consistent with the limitations in\r\nArticle XV, Section 1 of the California Constitution. (Voronin Decl., para. 3-5\r\n(interest at 10% per annum from October 4, 2019 through September 7, 2021); see\r\nJohn Siebel Assoc. v. Keele (1986)\r\n188 Cal.App.3d 560, 564 (discussing usury limits on prejudgment interest).)\r\nThe attorney’s fees claimed are consistent with Local Rule 3.214. The costs\r\nclaimed are sufficiently itemized. (Kravitz Decl, para. 14.)

\r\n\r\n

The Request for Entry of Default Judgment is GRANTED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

CONCLUSION

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment is\r\nGRANTED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff to give notice of\r\nthis Order and the concurrently executed Judgment.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

'b'

Case Number: 20STCV43699 Hearing Date: July 8, 2021 Dept: 20

Ruling

\r\n\r\n

Judge Kevin C. Brazile

\r\n\r\n

Department 20

\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n

Date: Thursday,\r\nJuly 8, 2021

\r\n\r\n

Case Name: U.S. Foods v. Pints\r\n& Quarts Gastro Pub, LLC, et al.

\r\n\r\n

Case No.: 20STCV43699

\r\n\r\n

Hearing: Non-Appearance\r\nCase Review re: Default Judgment

\r\n\r\n

Notice: OK

\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n

Ruling: Plaintiff’s request for default judgment\r\nis DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff shall submit an updated default\r\npackage within 30 days of this ruling. The OSC re: Default Judgment is\r\nCONTINUED from August 17, 2021 to September 17, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. in Department\r\n20 of Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff to give notice.

\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

BACKGROUND

\r\n\r\n

On November 13, 2020, Plaintiff U.S. Foods filed a\r\nComplaint against Pints & Quarts Gastro Pub, LLC dba Pints & Quarts\r\nGastro Pub & Pizzeria ("P&Q"), Donna M. Niehouse, Cary Reese\r\nand Does 1-10, stating causes of cation for breach of contract, breach of\r\nguaranty, and common counts for open book account, account stated and\r\nreasonable value arising out of Niehouse\'s application to Plaintiff for a\r\ncredit line for P&Q, subsequent purchases thereunder, and the personal\r\nguaranty of the credit line by Niehouse and Reese.

\r\n\r\n

On March 22, 2021, the clerk entered the default of\r\nP&Q and Cary Reese.

\r\n\r\n

On May 21, 2021, the clerk entered the default of\r\nDonna Niehouse.

\r\n\r\n

On June 16, 2021, Plaintiff dismissed Does 1-10 and\r\nfiled a request for entry of default judgment against P&Q, Reese and\r\nNiehouse in the amount of $42,919.19.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS

\r\n\r\n

CCP § 585 permits entry of a judgment after a defendant’s\r\ndefault has been entered. CRC Rule 3.1800(a) requires a party seeking default\r\njudgment by court judgment must file a Request for Court Judgment (Form\r\nCIV-100) and: (1) a brief summary of the case; (2) declarations or other\r\nadmissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3) interest\r\ncomputations as necessary; (4) a memorandum of costs and disbursements; (5) a\r\ndeclaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant against whom judgment is\r\nsought; (6) a proposed form of judgment (optional Form JUD-100); (7) a\r\ndismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application\r\nfor separate judgment under CCP sec. 579, supported by a showing of grounds for\r\neach judgment; (8) exhibits as necessary; and (9) a request for attorneys’ fees\r\nif allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties.

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff requests a total judgment of $42,919.19,\r\nconsisting of $31,238.26 in damages, $9,538,79 in prejudgment interest, $1,327.14\r\nin attorney\'s fees pursuant to LASC Local Rule 3.214, and $815.00 in costs.\r\nPlaintiff used mandatory forms in seeking default judgment, dismissed Doe\r\ndefendants, and provided supporting evidence and declarations. The judgment\r\nsought is consistent with the demands of the Complaint for “the sum of\r\n$31,238.26, together with accrued interest thereon at the rate of 10% per annum\r\nfrom October 4, 2019,” plus reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. (Complaint,\r\npara. 21.)

\r\n\r\n

The evidence and admitted allegations generally establish\r\nthe existence of the loans at issue and the principal amounts due thereunder. (See\r\nKravitz Decl., para. 4, Exh. 1 (P&Q\'s Credit Application dated November 13,\r\n2013); para. 9, Exh. 2 (Niehouse and Reese\'s Personal Guaranty of the Credit\r\nLine); para. 10, Exh. 3 (invoices for business credit line); Exh. 4 (Statement\r\nof Account for business credit line); see also Falahati v. Kondo\r\n(2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 823, 829 fn. 3 (default admits material, well-pleaded allegations of the complaint))\r\n

\r\n\r\n

However, Plaintiff calculates prejudgment interest at an\r\nannual rate of “18% from October 4, 2019 to May 24, 2021.” (Kravitz Decl.,\r\npara. 15; Complaint, para. 13-14.) The California Constitution generally caps\r\nthe interest rates “on ‘a judgment rendered in any court of this state\r\n. . . at not more than 10 percent per annum.’” (John Siebel Assoc. v. Keele (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 560, 564; Cal.\r\nConst., Art. XV, Sec. 1.) When “interest is requested in excess of the\r\nusury limitations of . . . Article XV, Section 1,” LASC Local Rule 3.206 places\r\nthe burden on the plaintiff to present “proof . . . of plaintiff’s exemption\r\nfrom the usury limitations unless an exemption has been pleaded in the complaint\r\nand admitted by the entry of default.”

\r\n\r\n

No usury exemption is pleaded and admitted in the Complaint\r\nor elsewhere identified. (Garwacki Decl., para. 1-6 (interest calculations but\r\nno justification of 18% rate)) While there are “numerous exceptions” to\r\nCalifornia’s constitutional usury restrictions, which do not apply to “loans\r\nor forbearances made or arranged by banks or by ‘any other class of persons\r\nauthorized by statute,’” the Complaint does not identify an exemption from the\r\nusury limitations (Jones v. Wells Fargo\r\nBank (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1527; Ghirardo\r\nv. Antonioli (1994) 8 Cal.4th 791, 807.)) Plaintiff only alleges it\r\nis and was a “valid and existing Corporation authorized and qualified to do and\r\nis doing business within the State of California,” but does not allege it is a\r\nbank or otherwise within a “class of persons authorized” to charge enhanced\r\ninterest rates. (Complaint, para. 3.)

\r\n\r\n

Therefore, the request for prejudgment interest in excess of\r\n10% per annum is unconstitutionally excessive. Plaintiff musts either establish\r\nthat a usury exemption permits the judgment sought or file an updated request\r\nfor entry of default judgment recalculating prejudgment interest at 10% per\r\nannum. The Request for Entry of Default\r\nJudgment is DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

CONCLUSION

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff’s request for default\r\njudgment is DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff shall submit an\r\nupdated default package within 30 days of this ruling. The OSC re: Default\r\nJudgment is CONTINUED from August 17, 2021 to September 17, 2021 at 8:30 a.m.\r\nin Department 20 of Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff to give notice.

\r\n\r\n

'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where US FOODS, INC. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer GARWACKI JR. RAY