DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
20STCV15927·la·Civil·Contract
Hearing todayGRANTED

JK7 LLC, et. al. v. ABS Construction Group, Inc., et. al.

Motion to set aside default and default judgment

Hearing date
Sep 3, 2026
Department
O
Judge
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$90,000.00$263,372.49

Parties

PlaintiffJK7 LLC
PlaintiffDiana Farajollahzadeh LLC
DefendantABS Construction Group, Inc.
DefendantFelix Hurtado
DefendantPrimo Construction, Inc.
DefendantModern One Plastering, Inc.
DefendantBorik Jeovany Rosales Miranda
DefendantPyramid General Contractor Mission City Glass, Inc.
DefendantRobert Madrazo
DefendantAnahita Construction
DefendantAlireza Haghighat
DefendantKypseli Construction And Pools, Inc.
DefendantNader Kashani

Ruling

(Santa Monica Courthouse: Dept. O) September 3, 2026 DEPARTMENT O LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

September 3, 2026 20STCV15927 (JK7 LLC, et. al. v. ABS Construction Group, Inc., et. al.) RELEVANT BACKGROUND On April 24, 2020, plaintiffs JK7, LLC and Diana Farajollahzadeh LLC (Plaintiffs) filed their initial complaint against numerous defendants.

On June 25, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint (FAC) against defendants ABS Construction Group, Inc.; Felix Hurtado; Primo Construction, Inc.; Modern One Plastering, Inc.; Borik Jeovany Rosales Miranda; Pyramid General Contractor Mission City Glass, Inc., Robert Madrazo; Anahita Construction; Alireza Haghighat; Kypseli Construction And Pools, Inc.; Nader Kashani; And Does 1-100.

INSTANT MOTION On July 13, 2026, Defendants Alireza Haghighat and Anahita Construction, Inc. (collectively Defendants) filed the instant motion to set aside default and default judgment. Plaintiffs filed an opposition, and Defendants filed a reply.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE The request for judicial notice of various filings in the instant action are granted.

DISCUSSION "The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or the party's legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against the party through the party's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken." (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 473, subd. (b).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 580(a) provides that, where there is no answer, "[t]he relief granted to the plaintiff ... cannot exceed that demanded in the complaint, in the statement required by Section 425.11, or in the statement provided for by Section 425.115." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 580, subd. (a).)

Defendants' motion to set aside defaults and default judgment is GRANTED on the basis that the amount exceeds the amount sought in the complaint and the judgment is therefore void. (Electronic Funds Solutions, LLC v. Murphy (2005) 134 Cal.App.4 th 1161,1172-1174 [award of compensatory damages on default could not exceed amount prayed for in complaint]; Finney v. Gomez (20023) 111 Cal.App.4th 527, 531.)

The FAC sought "an amount not less than $90,000.00" from Defendants Haghighat and Anahita Construction, Inc. (RFJN P. 2 and Exhibit A P. 45) But, on November 14, 2025, the Court awarded Plaintiffs damages in the amount of $263,372.49. (RJFN P. 6 and Exhibit E at 2.)

Because the amount of damages in the default judgment exceeds the amount prayed for in the FAC, the judgment is void as the Court had no jurisdiction to render it as a matter of law. Given this, the Court need not reach the arguments concerning service.

Case Number: 26SMCV04068 Hearing Date: September 3, 2026 Dept: O TENTATIVE RULING September 3, 2026 26SMCV04068 (Camden 1, LLC, et. al. v. L.B. Bussell, M.D., Inc.) RELEVANT BACKGROUND On July 23, 2026, plaintiffs Camden 1, LLC; Camden 2, LLC; Camden 3, LLC;Camden 4, LLC; Camden 5, LLC (Plaintiffs) filed their complaint against defendant L.B. Bussell, M.D., Inc., dba Beverly Hills Dermatology Consultants (Defendant).

On August 27, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a proof of service by substituted service.

INSTANT MOTION On August 18 and 20, 2026, Defendant filed the instant motion to quash service of summons. Plaintiff filed an opposition. No reply has been filed.

DISCUSSION A limited liability company may be served in a number of manners, including: (a) In addition to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 413.10) of Title 5 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, process may be served upon limited liability companies and foreign limited liability companies as provided in this section.

(b) Personal service of a copy of any process against the limited liability company or the foreign limited liability company by delivery (1) to any individual designated by it as agent, or (2) if the designated agent is a corporation, to any person named in the latest certificate of the corporate agent filed pursuant to Section 1505 at the office of the corporate agent, shall constitute valid service on the limited liability company or the foreign limited liability company. (Corp. Code, Sec. 17701.16)

"In lieu of personal delivery of a copy of the summons and complaint to the person to be served as specified in Section 416.10, 416.20, 416.30, 416.40, or 416.50, a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint during usual office hours in his or her office or, if no physical address is known, at his or her usual mailing address, other than a United States Postal Service post office box, with the person who is apparently in charge thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left.

When service is effected by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at a mailing address, it shall be left with a person at least 18 years of age, who shall be informed of the contents thereof. Service of a summons in this manner is deemed complete on the 10th day after the mailing. [emphasis added]" (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 415.20.)

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