Adams Kabob House Inc. v. El Camino ADHC, Inc.

summons is much more likely to result in actual notice to the defendant that something has occurred requiring reassessment of the decision not to contest the action."].) Here, the Court notes that Plaintiff has already filed its proposed first amended complaint naming the correct Plaintiff. However, such amended complaint must be served in the manner provided for service of summons. (Tidwell v. Henricks (1954) 124 Cal.App.2d 64, 66 ["The filing of an amended complaint * * *, not only vacated a defendant's default, but superseded the original complaint, and the original complaint is dropped out of the case and ceased to have any effect as a pleading or as a basis for a judgment.

Where an original complaint had dropped out of existence as such when a second default was entered against a defendant, and an amended complaint had not yet been served on defendant, the second default stood as a nullity and was properly vacated by the trial court."] (emphasis in original).)

III. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend is GRANTED. Default as to Morales and SMM is hereby vacated. Plaintiff is ordered to properly serve the FAC upon these defendants before any further action can be taken by the Court against them. Dated this 27th day of August 2026 | | | Hon. Gary D. Roberts Judge of the Superior Court |

STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ADAMS KABOB HOUSE INC., Plaintiff, vs. EL CAMINO ADHC, INC.; and Does 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendants. |))))

))))))) | CASE NO.: 26STCV01151 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Dept. 733 8:30 a.m. August 27, 2026 |

I. INTRODUCTION

This case arises from an alleged breach of a contract for catering services. On January 13, 2026, Plaintiff Adams Kabob House Inc. ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint against Defendant El Camino ADHC, Inc. ("Defendant"), alleging causes of action for (1) Breach of Contract and (2) Common Counts. On March 6, 2026, the Court Clerk entered default against Defendant. On July 13, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of Default Judgment.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 585 permits entry of a judgment after a Defendant has failed to timely answer after being properly served. A party seeking judgment on the default by the Court must file a Request for Court Judgment, and: (1) a brief summary of the case; (2) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3) interest computations as necessary; (4) a memorandum of costs and disbursements; (5) a proposed form of judgment; (6) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought; (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (8) exhibits as necessary; and (9) a request for attorneys' fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (Cal.

Rules of Court Rule 3.1800.)

III. DISCUSSION

SUBMITTED: CRC 3.1800 1. Use of JC Form CIV-100 Yes 2. Dismissal or judgment of non-parties to the judgment No 3. Declaration of non-military status for each defendant Yes 4. Summary of the case Yes 5. 585(d) declarations/admissible evidence in support Yes 6. Exhibits (as necessary) Yes 7. Interest computation (as necessary) N/A 8. Cost memorandum Yes 9. Request for attorney fees (Local Rule 3.214) N/A Damages Summary: Damages | $ 79,819.00 | Interest | $0 | Attorneys' fees | $0 | Costs | $ 675.40 | TOTAL |

$ 80,494.40 | Other relief requested | |

Plaintiff seeks a default judgment in the amount of $80,494.40, which includes $79,819.00 in damages and $675.40 in costs. Plaintiff has provided a cost memorandum as to the incurred costs, which includes $ 435.00 for Clerk's filing fees and $240.40 for Process server's fees. For any damages claimed, "'Plaintiffs in a default judgment proceeding must prove they are entitled to the damages claimed.' [Citation]." (Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 288.) "[T]he plaintiff must affirmatively establish his entitlement to the specific judgment requested." (Id. at p. 287.)

Plaintiff declares that Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Defendant for the purchase of catering services for breakfast and lunch from Plaintiff's restaurant for Defendant's adult day health care for five days a week, Monday through Friday. (Bablumyan Decl., P. 3.) The agreement called for payment for the meals at the end of every month upon presentation of an invoice from Plaintiff. (Ibid.)

In mid-2025, Defendant became past due on its account. In an effort to continue the working relationship, Plaintiff allowed Defendant to enter into a payment plan, to which it also did not adhere. Defendant failed to pay for any portion of the meals delivered to it from July 1, 2025 to November 12, 2025. (Id. P. 4.) Due to Defendant's failure to pay, Plaintiff eventually stopped delivering meals to it. At the time that Plaintiff stopping delivering meals to Defendant, the past due amount totaled $105,279.00. (Id. P. 5.) While Defendant made a partial payment after Plaintiff sent a demand, there remains a total of $79,819.00 outstanding. (Id. P.P. 6-7, Ex. B [past due invoices].)

Plaintiff has otherwise provided the necessary documents per California Rules of Court Rule 3.1800(A), including a proposed form of judgment and summary of the case, and properly authenticated all submitted exhibits. However, Plaintiff has not filed a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought. Plaintiff has not dismissed Does 1 to 50, inclusive.

IV. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff's Request for Default Judgment is GRANTED in the amount of $80,494.40, contingent on Plaintiff promptly dismissing Does 1 to 50, inclusive. Dated this 27th day of August 2026 | | | Hon. Gary D. Roberts Judge of the Superior Court | | Home -->)" -->