Case Number: BC464336??? Hearing Date: April 26, 2016??? Dept: 34

Plaintiff?s Request for Entry of Default Judgement

Defaulting Parties: Defendants Stewart & O?Kula; Donald Lee O?Kula, individual and executor of The Johnson Trust; Kathryn O?Kula fka Kathryn Baracao; and The Johnson Trust

BACKGROUND:

Plaintiffs, jointly as executors of the Andre Norton Estate, commenced this action on June 24, 2011 against defendants Stewart & O?Kula, Donald Lee O?Kula (?O?Kula?), Kathryn O?Kula fka Kathryn Baracao (?Baracao?), and the Johnson Trust. Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint on February 7, 2012, alleging nine causes of action, denominated: (1) breach of fiduciary duty; (2) breach of contract; (3) negligence; (4) constructive fraud; (5) intentional misrepresentation (fraud); (6) conspiracy to commit fraud; (7) usurious loan under California Constitution; (8) quiet title; and (9) declaratory relief.

This case arises out of the alleged malpractice of defendant O?Kula, individually, and on behalf of his law firm, Stewart & O?Kula. Plaintiffs retained O?Kula on the belief that O?Kula was an experience entertainment attorney in California who could represent plaintiffs? ownership in the estate of Andre Norton, a science fiction writer. Plaintiffs allege that defendant O?Kula misrepresented his experience in the entertainment field and defrauded plaintiffs into selling O?Kula rights to Norton?s work.

On 9/17/15, the Court granted plaintiffs? motion for terminating sanctions and struck the answers of all defendants.

ANALYSIS:

The TAC alleges that defendants improperly induced plaintiffs into selling O?Kula the copyrights of the properties listed in the proposed order. (See TAC ?? 32-34, 36, 39; Prop. Order, p. 2.) The TAC also alleges that defendants improperly took and loaned funds from The Johnson Trust at a usurious rate for the purposes of purchasing the properties. (See id., ?? 41-42.) The TAC seeks to rescind and invalidate the sales agreement and the loan. (See Prayer, pp. 36-38.)

However, plaintiffs have failed to provide the original agreements for cancellation or a declaration and proposed order to accept copies.

If the plaintiffs rectify this omission, the court will enter default judgment.