Munoz v. Ruiz CA2/1

Filed 9/25/14 Munoz v. Ruiz CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

LUIS C. MUNOZ, B251883

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC456601) v.

ALEXANDER RUIZ et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles. Teresa Sanchez- Gordon, Judge. Affirmed. Bert V. Anthony for Plaintiff and Appellant. Peter S. Park for Defendants and Respondents. _______________________________

Plaintiff Luis C. Munoz appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion to vacate the order denying his request for entry of judgment against defendant RCH Broadcasting, Inc. (RCH). We affirm. BACKGROUND In March 2011, Munoz filed this action against defendants Alexander Ruiz and Patty La Valle, seeking repayment of a debt in the amount of $35,710.70. Ruiz answered the complaint in April 2011. In August 2011, Munoz amended his complaint by substituting RCH for a fictitiously named doe defendant. On September 20, 2011, Munoz personally served the amendment to the complaint on Ruiz, as the registered agent for service of process of RCH, in North Carolina. RCH did not answer the complaint. On December 22, 2011, Munoz filed a request for entry of default against RCH. Apparently the clerk entered the default the same day. According to a notice of ruling filed by Munoz on August 27, 2012, on August 23, 2012, the trial court granted a motion by Ruiz and RCH’s counsel to be relieved as attorney of record in this case. The court further ordered Munoz “to proceed with the default of the corporation” (RCH). The court also set the trial and an order to show cause regarding default for October 29, 2012. On August 30, 2012, Munoz submitted to the trial court a request for clerk’s judgment against RCH, which the court rejected on September 5, 2012. The rejection notice indicates the clerk could not enter judgment because the doe defendants had not been disposed of and an answer had been filed in the case. The clerk instructed Munoz to submit a request for court judgment. On September 14, 2012, Munoz submitted to the trial court a request for court judgment against RCH, which the court rejected on October 2, 2012. The rejection notice indicates Munoz failed to complete the sections of the request form listing the name of the defendant against whom Munoz sought judgment and the dollar amount of