Harlem v. Corben CA2/6

Filed 3/4/26 Harlem v. Corben CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

DYLAN HARLEM et al., 2d Civ. No. B339187 (Super. Ct. No. 23CV01256) Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

KENNETH CORBEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Kenneth Corben appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to set aside the default judgment entered against him and in favor of Krisp Productions NY, LLC (Krisp). We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 2023, Krisp and other individuals (collectively Respondents) filed a lawsuit against Corben and others in Santa Barbara County. The lawsuit alleged, among other things, that Corben and other defendants1 breached their obligations and intentionally made false misrepresentations related to a joint

1 The other defendants are not party to this appeal.

venture agreement to operate a commercial marijuana farm in Santa Maria purportedly owned by Corben’s entity, Equal 7 LLC, and split the profits. Respondents sought the return of their investment and punitive damages after Corben allegedly failed to share profits with them. In March 2023, Respondents personally served Corben with the lawsuit and a notice of punitive damages in the amount of $1,000,000. Corben then communicated with Respondents’ counsel and agreed to produce financial records and participate in settlement discussions in exchange for Respondents’ agreement to not request Corben’s default. Based on Corben’s representations that no defendant lived in Santa Barbara County, the parties stipulated to transfer the action to Los Angeles County. But Respondents could not file the stipulation because Corben had not appeared in the lawsuit or paid appearance fees. Respondents’ counsel notified Corben the stipulation could not be filed until he paid his appearance fee. Corben did not respond and did not appear in the lawsuit. Nor did Corben produce the financial documents by the promised deadline. Respondents’ counsel sent Corben several emails requesting the documents, with no response. Counsel advised Corben that Respondents would seek his default if he failed to respond. In June 2023, default was entered against Corben. Corben then agreed to participate in a June 2023 telephonic settlement conference with Respondents’ counsel. One minute before the call was to begin, Corben emailed to state he would not participate due to the default entered against him. In December 2023, a default judgment in the amount of $507,783.64 was entered against Corben and his related entities,