Motion to vacate the default judgment
counsel and class more closely than does the lodestar method: a larger recovery with fewer hours expended benefits all parties. (Ibid.)
With respect to the contingent nature of litigation, courts tend to find above-market-value fee awards more appropriate in this context given the need to encourage counsel to take on contingency-fee cases for plaintiffs who otherwise could not afford to pay hourly fees. (Bellinghausen v. Tractor Supply Company (N.D. Cal. 2015) 306 F.R.D. 245, 260.) Moreover, when counsel takes cases on a contingency fee basis, and litigation is protracted, the risk of nonpayment after years of litigation justifies a significant fee award. (Ibid.)
Here, Class Counsel took this matter on a contingency basis with the corresponding risk of potentially failing to recover damages. This action has been pending for two years. Class Counsel request $104,166.67 in attorney fees, or approximately 33% of the common fund, and $20,000 in costs. Counsel incurred $20,180.04 in expenses. (Smith decl., Exhibit 3.) The amounts requested are reasonable under the circumstances.
6. Service Award Plaintiff seeks a service payment of $5,000. Class Counsel’s declaration supports the requested fee award based upon Plaintiff’s assistance to counsel and the risk associated with litigating the action. (Smith decl., ¶¶42-43.)
7.
Conclusion
Based on this court’s review of the motion and the terms of the settlement, the settlement is “fair, adequate and reasonable” and the rights of the class members have been protected such that there is no sign of fraud, collusion, or unfairness. Accordingly, the motion for final approval of the class action settlement is granted. The court will sign the proposed order.
2. 24CV04975, Looney v. Amerigo, LLC. Defendants Amerigo, LLC dba Kirway Express and Joseph Ismael (“Defendants”) have filed a motion to vacate the default judgment entered against them in this case. The motion is made on the grounds that Defendants were not properly served with summons and complaint.
1.
Procedural History
Default judgment was entered in this case on December 10, 2024. On January 28, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to set aside the default judgment. The hearing on that motion was set for April 30, 2025. On that date, this court continued the matter because defendant Amerigo, LLC, was unrepresented. Defendant Ismael had filed the motion in pro per on behalf of himself and the LLC; however, defendant Ismael is not an attorney and may not represent an LLC. The hearing was continued to August 20, 2025.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
On August 20, 2025, this court denied the motion as proof of service of the motion on Plaintiff Gary E. Looney had not been filed and no additional documents had been filed substituting in an attorney to represent Amerigo, LLC. Previously unbeknownst to this court department, on January 9, 2025, prior to filing the motion to vacate the default judgment, Defendants filed an appeal to the appellate division of the superior court. That appeal raises the same issues presented in this motion and the prior motion to vacate the default judgment. That appeal has been ongoing. The hearing is currently set for June 23, 2026.
Plaintiff raised the issue of Defendants’ pending appeal in his opposition. Defendants have not addressed it in their reply. However, as the appeal may resolve the issue and render this motion moot, and to avoid inconsistent rulings on the issue, this court will continue the hearing on this motion to allow Defendants’ appeal to be finalized. 4
The motion is CONTINUED to the next available hearing date of November 18, 2026, at 3:00 p.m., in Department 16.
3. 25CV01840, American Express National Bank v. Trujillo Plaintiff American Express National Bank (“Plaintiff”) moves for summary judgment in its favor against Defendant Randy Trujillo, aka Randy J. Trujillo (“Defendant”), on Plaintiff’s single cause of action for breach of contract. The motion is GRANTED.
On March 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant alleging breach of contract on a personal loan. Plaintiff alleges Defendant owes it $33,690.30. On May 2, 2025, Defendant filed an answer generally denying each statement alleged in the complaint and stating he does not have the funds to pay back the debt. He states he is “currently filing bankruptcy due to sustainable loss with Crypto over $750,000.” As of the time the court reviewed this matter, no notice of a bankruptcy filing had been filed in this action.
Defendant applied to Plaintiff for a personal loan and entered into a written Loan Agreement for the account number ending in 1000 (the “Account”). (Plaintiff’s Undisputed Material Fact [“UMF”] No. 1.) Pursuant to the direction of the Defendant, Plaintiff disbursed the loan/financed amount to the Defendant by check, to Defendant’s designated bank account or to a third-party designee. (UMF No. 2.) The Defendant agreed to be bound by the terms and conditions set forth in the Loan Agreement and, among other promises, promised to pay Plaintiff the principal amount advanced and/or financed along with the interest rate disclosed in the Truth in Lending disclosure statement. (UMF No. 3.)
The loan amount, the accrual of interest, and the amount of fees and payments applied to the loan account are duly reflected on the computerized records regularly kept and maintained by Plaintiff in connection with Defendant’s loan account. (UMF No. 4.) Those records were provided on a monthly basis in the form of billing statements to Defendant. (Ibid.) Before 01/17/25, the Defendant defaulted in making the payments due under the terms of the Loan Agreement and Plaintiff accelerated the account balance so that the entire unpaid balance on the account became immediately due and payable. (UMF No. 5.) The last payment applied to the account was on or about 10/04/24. (UMF No. 6.) Defendant owes Plaintiff $33,690.30 plus court costs. (UMF No. 7.)
Plaintiff has established the parties entered into an agreement; Plaintiff’s performance of its obligations under the agreement; Defendant’s breach; and, resulting damages to Plaintiff. (See Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 1388 [elements of a cause of action for breach of contract].) Defendant has not filed opposition. Therefore, he has failed to raise a triable issue of material fact. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. This court will sign the proposed order.
4. 25CV03181, Looney v. Perez Plaintiff Gary E. Looney dba Collectronics of California (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order appointing Landon McPherson as receiver to take possession of and, if necessary, sell the liquor license of defendant Gerardo Perez, individually as personal guarantor of The Maple Bar Cafe (“Judgment Debtor”) in order to carry out the judgment entered in this case in the amount of $8,862.85. 5