Los Angeles Federal Credit Union v. Stephanie Ann Cortez

Vallejo argues that his failure to file a responsive pleading was the result of excusable neglect. The court disagrees.

The proof of service demonstrates that California Business Bureau served Vallejo with process by substituted service on December 18, 2025. (See 12/22/2025 POS, P. 5.)

According to Vallejo, he promptly hired an attorney to represent him in this case, but the attorney withdrew before filing a responsive pleading. (See Mot., Vallejo Decl., P.P. 3-5.) Thereafter, Vallejo retained his current counsel. (See Mot., Vallejo Decl., P.P. 5-6; see also Mot., Kim Decl., P.P. 3-4.) The court entered default against Vallejo on February 3, 2026. (See 2/3/2026 CIV-100, p. 1.)

Neither Vallejo, his former counsel, nor his current counsel specify when former counsel withdrew or when Vallejo retained current counsel. Without such information, the court cannot determine whether Vallejo acted promptly, whether the failure to file a responsive pleading was the result of his excusable neglect, or potentially whether the failure fell on former or current counsel. Thus, Vallejo fails to meet his burden for relief from default under Section 473, subdivision (b).

Therefore, the motion to set aside entry of default and vacate default judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the motion to vacate judgment and set aside default is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Credit Union's Application for Default Judgment Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

Plaintiff Los Angeles Federal Credit Union's Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This is an action for breach of contract. On July 8, 2024, defendant Stephanie Ann Cortez (Cortez) allegedly executed promissory notes payable to plaintiff Los Angeles Federal Credit Union for the purchase and installation of solar panels. Cortez allegedly failed to make payments pursuant to the notes. On March 23, 2026, Los Angeles Federal Credit Union filed the Complaint, alleging causes of action for (1) foreclosure on lien and breach of contract and (2) declaratory relief.

On May 12, 2026, Los Angeles Federal Credit Union filed this application for entry of default and for default judgment, and the court entered default against Cortez. This case is set for an order to show cause re: default judgment on September 1, 2026.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 585 permits entry of a default judgment after a party has filed to timely respond or appear. 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 declaration of nonmilitary status; (6) a proposed form of judgment; (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under 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.)

ANALYSIS

Los Angeles Federal Credit Union seeks default judgment in the total amount of $81,036.07, including $73,731.27 demanded in the Complaint, $4,335.18 in interest, $605.00 in costs, and $2,364.62 in attorney's fees. (See CIV-100, P. 2.) Los Angeles Federal Credit Union submitted sufficient evidence to prove its damages. (See Sookazian Decl., P.P. 1-5; see also Sookazian Decl., Exhs. A-E.) Therefore, the application for default judgment is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the application for default judgment is GRANTED. | Home -->)" -->