Default Prove Up Hearing
24CV100359: ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ADVOCATES, INC. vs ANIMA MUNDI HERBALS LLC, A NEW YORK LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 07/31/2026 Default Prove Up Hearing in Department 25
Tentative Ruling - 07/30/2026 Jenna Whitman
ORDER RE: CASE MANAGEMENT
The Court has ordered the following after review of the case.
PARTIES TO APPEAR. Plaintiff's counsel shall be prepared to address:
1. Whether default was improvidently entered. The Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint, filed 4/14/2025, is incomplete, in that Item 3.b. is not filled in. The Proof of Service does not identify the person served on behalf of defendant Anima Mundi Herbals LLC, or state facts regarding that person's relationship to the entity defendant, which are necessary to establish that this person was authorized (expressly or pursuant to statute) to be served on behalf of defendant. (See Nagel v. P & M Distributors, Inc. (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 176, 181 [where proof of service of summons "asserts only that [process server] served Ljungberg a person authorized to receive service of process pursuant to' [statute]," the judgment roll did not reflect effective service, and default judgment was void].)
Moreover, it is not clear to the court that any applicable statute permits service of defendant in this manner outside of the State of California. (See, e.g., Code Civ. Proc., § 416.10, Corp. Code, §§ 2105, 2110.) If Plaintiff cannot prove through admissible evidence that service was properly effected, the default entered 6/23/2025 must be set aside and vacated.
2. Dismissal of Doe Defendants. This was called out in the Court's order dated 12/17/2025. No request for dismissal of Does 1-10 has been filed.
3. Factual basis for the amount of civil penalties sought. This was also raised previously. Plaintiff now submits a spreadsheet showing at least 145 units sold in the State of California through Amazon.com, during the relevant period. This sales data, however, is not authenticated by a competent declarant. It also constitutes hearsay, unless a competent declarant can lay the necessary foundation to establish an exception (e.g., Evid. Code 1271). In addition, Plaintiff presents no evidence bearing on the factors the Court must consider in determining the appropriate amount, up to $2,500, of the amount of monetary penalty per violation/day. (See
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?”
While the Court may draw permissible inferences from Defendant's failure to respond to the Complaint as to some factors, this would not seem appropriate as to the number of violations or their severity (i.e., how much lead was found in the sample(s) tested and how does not compare to legal thresholds).
4. Attorney's fees. The Court previously commented in the 12/17/2025 Order that the number of hours billed "appear excessive in light of procedural posture of the case" (and cited specific billing items that appear to be "grossly excessive"). Plaintiff has not addressed this issue 24CV100359: ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ADVOCATES, INC. vs ANIMA MUNDI HERBALS LLC, A NEW YORK LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 07/31/2026 Default Prove Up Hearing in Department 25 substantively, and appears to seek to be compensated for additional hours in connection with the default judgment process.
5. Costs of $3,000 for Investigation/Evidence. The Court previously commented that this item of costs is not supported. This is not addressed. The remaining $708.00 would appear to be recoverable.