Gonzales v. Total Lender Solutions Inc.

party is ordered to give notice.

Lender Solutions Inc.

Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint Tentative Ruling The Court will call this matter.

When the initial complaint in this matter was filed on July 15, 2025, the plaintiff was identified as Belle Gonzales dba EFC Mortgage Solutions, LLC. In the complaint, plaintiff, identified as EFC Mortgage Solutions, LLC, alleged that it had an interest in real property located at 1032 Berendo Street in Los Angeles (the "Property). (Compl., P. 4 & Exh. A.)

In the First Amended Complaint, filed on August 14, 2025, the plaintiff was again identified as EFC Mortgage Solutions, LLC. (FAC, P. 3 & Exh. A.)

On November 4, 2025, the Court sustained the demurrer of Defendants Ronald and Janice Rigor ("Defendants"), with leave to amend, on the ground that plaintiff was a corporate entity (an LLC) and must appear in court through an attorney, but the FAC was improperly filed by Ms. Gonzeles as a pro per plaintiff.

On November 26, 2025, a Second Amended Complaint (the "SAC") was filed. In the SAC, the plaintiff is identified as "Sevilla Gonzales," and she alleges that she, personally, has an interest in the Property.

On April 13, 2026, Defendants filed this demurrer to the SAC, arguing, among other things, that the amended allegation that Ms. Gonzales has a personal interest in the Property, as opposed to the interest being held by the LLC, is a sham amendment and should be ignored. Plaintiff filed an opposition, and Defendants filed a reply.

On August 24, 2026, Ms. Gonzales filed a substitution of attorney. She is now represented by counsel; she no longer represents herself. The Court will call this matter and discuss the demurrer with plaintiff's new counsel.

Case Number: 25STCV29744 Hearing Date: August 26, 2026 Dept: 514 Tentative Ruling The motions are denied without prejudice.

Ryan Cogdill ("Plaintiff") seeks the entry of default judgment against Labanyendu "Laban" Paattanaik ("Pattanaik") and Anila Management LLC dba Lead Health ("Anila") (collectively "Defendants"). The Court has reviewed the default judgment papers submitted by Plaintiff.

There are two issues that must be addressed before default judgment can be entered. First, Item 8 in the request for Court Judgment (CIV-100) as to Defendant Pattanaik is not completed properly. A new CIV-100 must be submitted as to Defendant Pattanaik. Second, no proposed judgment has been submitted. Form JUD-100 may be used.