Etame v. Ermel CA2/8

Filed 2/9/21 Etame v. Ermel CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

MARTIAL ETAME, B303939

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC679337) v.

WOLFRAM ERMEL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Patricia Nieto, Judge. Dismissed. Wolfram Ermel, in pro. per. for Defendant and Appellant. Martial Etame, in pro. per. for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_____________________________

Wolfram Ermel appeals from the denial of his motion to vacate the default judgment entered against him. We dismiss Ermel’s appeal because it is untimely. Moreover, Ermel has failed to specify any grounds entitling him to relief. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On October 12, 2017, Martial Etame filed a complaint against Ermel alleging causes of action for breach of contract, fraud, and conversion. The complaint alleged Ermel and Etame formed a business buying, selling, and restoring cars but the friends had a falling out in August 2017. Etame alleged Ermel then unlawfully converted five cars owned by Etame that were stored on Ermel’s property. Both Etame and Ermel were self- represented. Ermel filed a responsive pleading to the complaint on November 22, 2017, but thereafter failed to appear for a case management conference and two order to show cause hearings without excuse. As a result, the trial court struck his answer on October 30, 2018. The court entered default against Ermel on January 28, 2019, but denied Etame’s application for default judgment because he failed to properly plead specific damages. The order specified the default would be effectively vacated if an amended complaint were to be filed because it would allow Ermel an opportunity to submit a responsive pleading. Etame filed a first amended complaint alleging a cause of action for fraud and specifying damages of $380,000. Ermel failed to respond and a default was entered on the first amended complaint. Etame’s subsequent application for default judgment proved damages totaling $342,000 for the value of the cars and parts in Ermel’s possession. On June 17, 2019, the trial court entered a default judgment against Ermel for $342,000.