DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25STCV30761·la·Civil·Contract
Hearing todayCONTINUED

Unknown v. Allcarr, Inc. and Davit Ghazaryan

Motion for Default Judgment

Hearing date
Sep 2, 2026
Department
515
Judge
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$50,885.85$96,459.12$79,369.13$41,590.85$37,778.28$147,344.97

Parties

DefendantAllcarr, Inc.
DefendantDavit Ghazaryan

Ruling

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 515) September 2, 2026 DEPARTMENT 515 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

against Allcarr, Inc., and $96,459.12 against Davit Ghazaryan. The Ghazaryan figure rests on principal of $79,369.13, which is the $41,590.85 owed on the Allcarr note plus the $37,778.28 Ghazaryan separately guaranteed on the Phoenix Auto World note. Ghazaryan is liable for the first sum only as Allcarr's guarantor, and neither proposed judgment says so. As drafted the two judgments total $147,344.97 on a claim whose entire principal is $79,369.13. Relatedly, the two judgments duplicate the attorney fee calculation.

Finally, the original promissory notes must be presented for cancellation, or, if they are lost, Plaintiff must move for an order permitting copies. Case Number: 26STCV01465 Hearing Date: September 2, 2026 Dept: 515 The Complaint and the Request for Default Judgment name the principal owed as $38,478.44. Iria Ramos's declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 585(d) similarly claims $38,478.44, the sum of five account balances. However, based on Exhibit 3 to that declaration, it appears that for account 26622161 (DAUGHTRY JAMES / CAINE CYNDIE), Plaintiff inadvertently applied the Dealer proceeds figure ($2,450.14) rather than the remaining balance figure ($1,090.81).

The claim amount for every other account matches the remaining balance. Based on Exhibit 3, the supportable principal on this record is $37,119.11. If Plaintiff agrees with this change, the Court will make the change and sign the proposed judgment. | Home -->)" -->

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share