Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

BRAZOS STUDENT FINANCE CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JONATHAN M. DANG, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC 673507
Hearing Date:  June 26, 2018
Hearing Time:  8:30 a.m.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: 

 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT JONATHAN M. DANG

 

            Plaintiff Brazos Student Finance Corporation (“Plaintiff”) requests that the Court enter default judgment against Defendant Jonathan M. Dang (“Defendant”). However, the Court finds several deficiencies with Plaintiff’s default judgment package, as follows:

  1. The Declaration by Tiffany Jones in support of the request for default judgment is insufficient to support Plaintiff’s claim for damages. First, Ms. Jones attests to being the custodian of records for the “Plaintiff,” but the caption of the declaration shows the plaintiff as Acapita Education Finance Corporation (“Acapita”). Further,
  2. Ms. Jones attests to the fact that Defendant entered into the subject agreement with Acapita. There is no explanation of who or what Acapita is in relation to Plaintiff. Nevertheless, based on the evidence provided, Plaintiff has failed to establish that a contract exists between itself and Defendant.
  3. Second, this is an action on a promissory note; however, Plaintiff has failed to include the original of the promissory note. In lieu of the original, Plaintiff may provide a declaration explaining loss or unavailability, along with a proposed order to accept a copy in lieu of the original. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1806.) Additionally, the copy of the promissory note attached as Exhibit 1 to Ms. Jones’ declaration indicates that it is composed of two pages, but only one page is attached.
  4. Third, neither the facts attested to by Ms. Jones in her declaration nor the exhibits attached to her declaration provide sufficient support for the amount of damages claimed: $101,270.18. There is no ledger, accounting, or summary of amounts showing the balance due by Defendant.
  5. Fourth, Plaintiff provides no basis for its entitlement to prejudgment interest at the rate of 10% per annum. Although the disclosure statements attached as Exhibit 2 to the declaration of Tiffany Jones suggests that the promissory note will have additional information about non-payment or default, that information does not appear anywhere in Exhibit 1.
  6. Fifth, the case number on the proposed judgment (Form JUD-100) is incorrect.

Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for default judgment without prejudice and orders that Plaintiff resubmit a default judgment package that addresses the above deficiencies. At the hearing, the Court will discuss a schedule for Plaintiff to resubmit its default judgment package.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this Order.

DATED:  June 26, 2018

                                    ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

image_pdfimage_print