CV-24-004259 – UHG I LLC vs MENESES, EDWARD – Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment, if Entered - CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion to Thursday, July 23, 2025, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.The Court finds Defendant was not properly and validly served with Plaintiff’s summons and complaint herein and that good cause exists to set aside Plaintiff’s default taken herein.  (Code of Civil Procedure 473 (b), 473.5 and Civ. Code §1788.61).

Case Number: 25CMCV00282 Hearing Date: July 15, 2025 Dept: A SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SOUTH CENTRAL DISTRICT BAXTER, BAILEY, & ASSOCIATES, INC., Plaintiff, vs. TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO: 4 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE Dept. A DATE: July 15, 2025 TIME: 8:30 A.M. COMPLAINT FILED: 02/20/2025 TRIAL: None set MOVING PARTY: Defendants Toyota Motor North America, Inc. and Toyota Motor Sale, U.S.A., Inc. RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Baxter, Bailey, & Associates, Inc. 1. Background This is an action for breach of contract. Plaintiff Baxter, Bailey, & Associates, Inc. (Plaintiff) alleges that it is the assignee of U Max Logistics (Assignor). Plaintiff alleges that defendants Toyota Motor North America, Inc. and Toyota Motor Sale, U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, Toyota) acted as shipper/consigner for a shipment or series of shipments on March 14, 2024, while defendants CTSI Logistics, Inc. and Atkins acted as receiver/consignee for that shipment or series of shipments. Plaintiff alleges that Assignor was a licensed motor carrier engaged to carry out that series of shipments, each of which was designated as prepaid or collect, in which case the shipper or receiver, respectively, was the primary guarantor of freight charges. Plaintiff alleges that Assignor carried these shipments, with the respective Bills of Lading and transportation documents attached to the complaint as Exhibit A, but that the defendants breached the contract for shipment by refusing to pay unpaid freight charges for a total sum of $73,300. 2. Request for Judicial Notice Plaintiff requests that the court take judicial notice of the complaint and of supporting transportation records that were not filed with the complaint. Pursuant to California Evidence Code § 452, subd. (c), judicial notice may be taken of [o]fficial acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of any state of the United States. The court takes judicial notice of the complaint filed in this action. However, as private transportation records are not official acts of the legislative, executive, or judicial departments of the United States or of any state of the United States, the court declines to take judicial notice of such. [T]he existence of a contract between private parties cannot be established by judicial notice& (Gould v. Maryland Sound Industries, Inc. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1137, 1145.) 3. Discussion a. Demurrer Toyota demurs to all five causes of action in the complaint, for breach of contract, open book, account stated, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment. Toyota contends that the complaint fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action as to the first three causes of action, and that the latter two causes of action are barred by estoppel. In opposition, Plaintiff contends that each cause of action is properly and adequately alleged. A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747 (Hahn).)¿When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228.)¿In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice.¿(Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.)¿A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.¿Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.¿(SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.¿(Hahn, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at p. 747.)¿The ultimate facts alleged in the complaint must be deemed true, as well as all facts that may be implied or inferred from those expressly alleged.¿(Marshall v. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1397, 1403; see also Shields v. County of San Diego (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 103, 133 [stating, [o]n demurrer, pleadings are read liberally and allegations contained therein are assumed to be true.]) The court does not, however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law. [Citation.] (Durell v. Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.) 1. First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract To prevail on a cause of action for breach of contract, the plaintiff must prove (1) the contract, (2) the plaintiff's performance of the contract or excuse for nonperformance, (3) the defendant's breach, and (4) the resulting damage to the plaintiff. (Richman v. Hartley (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1182, 1186.) Toyota contends that the first cause of action for breach of contract fails because Plaintiff fails to allege the existence of a contract between Toyota and Assignor. Toyota contends that Assignor only entered into a contract with a third party not a party to this suit, Boa Logistics, LLC, and agreed to accept payment only from that party. In opposition, Plaintiff contends that the complaint alleges and incorporates documentary evidence showing that Toyota was designated as the shipper on Bills of Lading and rate confirmations for Assignor, arranged under prepaid terms. The complaint alleges that Defendants TMN, TMS, CTSI, and ATK, and DOES 1 to 100, and each of them, were desirous of transporting certain goods and wares for the benefit of their businesses from various locations and be delivered to destinations as designated on the Bills Of Lading and instructed by Defendants, including TMN, TMS, CTSI, and ATK. (Compl. ¶ 12.) The complaint subsequently alleges that Further and except for those excused performances, Plaintiff' Assignor(s) had performed each and every obligation and covenant incumbent upon it by virtue of said written Bills of Lading and/or transportation agreements as specified above and below in this complaint and as agreed. (Compl. ¶ 13.) At no point does the complaint allege that a contract was formed between Assignor and Toyota. Merely stating that Assignor performed any obligations that they may have had under a contract is insufficient to allege the existence or material terms of the purported contract. Furthermore, the complaint alleges that the Bills of Lading and other relevant transportation documents are provided as Exhibit A to the complaint. However, Exhibit A to the complaint contains no such documents, instead providing only what appears to be a worksheet of money alleged to be owed to Assignor by defendants Toyota Motors Sales, U.S.A., Inc. and Atkins C/O CTSI Logistics, Inc. As Plaintiff has failed to allege the existence of a contract between Assignor and Toyota, the complaint fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for breach of contract. The court will sustain the demurrer as to the first cause of action, with leave to amend. 2. Second Cause of Action for Open Book Account A book account is a detailed statement which constitutes the principal record of one or more transactions between a debtor and a creditor arising out of a contract or some fiduciary relation, and shows the debits and credits in connection therewith, and against whom and in favor of whom entries are made, is entered in the regular course of business as conducted by such creditor or fiduciary, and is kept in a reasonably permanent form and manner and is (1) in a bound book, or (2) on a sheet or sheets fastened in a book or to backing but detachable therefrom, or (3) on a card or cards of a permanent character, or is kept in any other reasonably permanent form and manner. (Code Civ. Proc. § 337, subd. (a).) Such an account is open when a balance remains due on the account. (Eloquence Corp. v. Home Consignment Center (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 655, 664-665.) As a general rule, an express contract does not create an open book account unless the parties agreed to treat money due under an express contract as items under an open book account. (Id. at pp. 665-666.) Toyota contends that any allegation of money owed is founded on the allegation of an express contract, and that there is no allegation of an agreement to treat money due under that contract as items under an open book account. In opposition, Plaintiff contends that its systematic account of credits and debits qualifies as an open book. Plaintiff argues that the attached spreadsheet constitutes an allegation of an open book account. However, the mere existence of& invoices& do not evidence such accounts. Those invoices simply memorialize the& contract. (Filmservice Laboratories, Inc. v. Harvey Bernhard Enterprises, Inc. (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 1297, 1307.) Accordingly, the spreadsheet attached as Exhibit A to the complaint does not sufficiently allege the existence of an open book account, particularly as it was clearly created in preparation for litigation and therefore not entered in the regular course of business. The complaint otherwise alleges only that Toyota became indebted to Plaintiff' Assignor(s) herein on an open book account for a balance due for transportation services and that Toyota promised to pay the sum of $73,300. (Compl. ¶ 17.) The complaint fails to allege the existence of a book account, nor facts whereby Toyota became indebted on that book account. The complaint therefore fails to allege sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for open book account. The court will sustain the demurrer as to the second cause of action, with leave to amend. 3. Third Cause of Action for Account Stated The essential elements of an account stated are: (1) previous transactions between the parties establishing the relationship of debtor and creditor; (2) an agreement between the parties, express or implied, on the amount due from the debtor to the creditor; (3) a promise by the debtor, express or implied, to pay the amount due. (Zinn v. Fred R. Bright Co. (1969) 271 Cal.App.2d 597, 600.) An account stated is an agreement, based on prior transactions between the parties, that the items of an account are true and that the balance struck is due and owing. [Citation]. (Professional Collection Consultants v. Lauron (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 958, 968.) The complaint alleges that Toyota and other defendants have a legal obligation to pay Plaintiff' Assignor(s) the sum of $73,300.00. (Compl. ¶ 20.) The complaint makes no allegation that Toyota and Plaintiff or Assignor agreed on the amount due from Toyota to Plaintiff or Assignor, nor does the complaint make any allegation that Toyota agreed to pay the agreed-upon amount. The complaint therefore fails to allege sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for account stated. The court will sustain the demurrer as to the third cause of action, with leave to amend. 4. Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action for Quantum Meruit and Unjust Enrichment An action based on an implied-in-fact or quasi-contract cannot lie where there exists between the parties a valid express contract covering the same subject matter. (Lance Camper Manufacturing Corp. v. Republic Indemnity Co. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 194, 203.) Here, although Plaintiff has inadequately alleged the existence of an express contract, Plaintiff has clearly attempted to allege the existence of an express contract. In order to proceed with a quasi-contract claim, Plaintiff must allege that the express contract is void or rescinded. (Ibid.) Plaintiff has not done so. The complaint therefore fails to allege sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for account stated. The court will sustain the demurrer as to the fourth and fifth causes of action, with leave to amend. a. Motion to Strike Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof.¿(Code of Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1322, subd. (b).)¿The court may, upon a motion or at any time in its discretion and upon terms it deems proper: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court.¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a)-(b); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782.) As the demurrer has been sustained with leave to amend, Defendants motion to strike portions of the complaint is moot. 4. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the court SUSTAINS Defendants Toyota Motor North America, Inc. and Toyota Motor Sale, U.S.A., Incs demurrer to the complaint. Plaintiff Baxter, Bailey, & Associates, Inc. may file an amended complaint not later than July 25, 2025. The court DENIES Defendants Toyota Motor North America, Inc. and Toyota Motor Sale, U.S.A., Inc.s motion to strike. Toyota is ordered to give notice. DATED: July 15, 2025 Hon. Elizabeth L. Bradley Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: 24NNCV06154 Hearing Date: July 9, 2025 Dept: X #1 - ELAVON, INC. vs AGAHOSPICE INC, et al. The Court has reviewed the Declaration of Martin Hoffmann regarding the Order to Show Cause hearing. The Order to Show Cause hearing is discharged. The Court sets an Order to Show Cause re: Sanctions up to $250.00 against Plaintiffs Counsel, Martin Hoffmann, for Plaintiffs failure to serve the Complaint (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.110). The Order to Show Cause hearing is set for October 8, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. in Department X of the Alhambra Courthouse.

Case Number: 24VECV05229 Hearing Date: July 8, 2025 Dept: NWB 24VECV05229 VW CREDIT INC., A CORPORATION vs ARMEN VARUZHI YAGHUBYAN, et al. Van Nuys Courthouse East, Dept. B Tentative Ruling - Request for Default Judgment I. Background On October 23, 2024, Plaintiff VW Credit Inc., dba VW Credit Leasing Ltd. (Plaintiff), filed a complaint against Defendants Armen Varuzhi Yaghubyan (Yaghubyan), Armavia Towing, Artur Mikayelyan (Mikayelyan), the California Department of Motor Vehicles (CA DMV), and Does 1 to 10 alleging five causes of action: (1) claim and delivery; (2) money due on a contract; (3) conversion; (4) quiet title; and (5) declaratory relief. On April 23, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant request for default judgment against Defendants Mikayelyan and Armavia Towing (hereinafter Defendants). On April 24, 2025, Plaintiff dismissed Yaghubyan and the CA DMV from the action. II. Requested Relief Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 585 permits entry of a default judgment after a party has failed to timely respond or appear. (CCP § 585.) A party seeking judgment on the default by the court must file a Request for Court Judgment, and: (1) a brief summary of the case; (2) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3) interest computations as necessary; (4) a memorandum of costs and disbursements; (5) declaration of nonmilitary status; (6) a proposed form of judgment; (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under CCP § 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (8) exhibits as necessary; and (9) a request for attorneys fees if allowed by statute or by agreement of the parties. (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1800.) Plaintiff alleges that it financed Defendants acquisition of a 2023 Audi A8L55 motor vehicle. (Plaintiff Decl. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants defaulted on the parties loan agreement. (Id. at ¶ 9.) Consequently, Plaintiff seeks repossession of the vehicle or, in the alternative, $58,750.00 in damages (representing the vehicles $57,000.00 value and $1,750.00 in attorney fees). (Id. at ¶ 20.) Plaintiffs request for default judgment is denied for the following deficiencies: 1. Plaintiff failed to complete Item 2 on Form CIV-100 in its entirety. (CRC Rule 3.1800(a).) 2. Plaintiff fails to provide the original loan agreement or a declaration in lieu of the original pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1806. (See CRC Rule 3.1806; see also Kahn v. Lasordas Dugout Inc. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1118, 1123.) 3. Plaintiff fails to provide admissible evidence of Defendants loan default. (CRC Rule 3.100(a)(2).) Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs request for default judgment is DENIED. Plaintiff is put on notice that future deficient filings risk dismissal and/or sanctions pursuant to CRC Rule 3.110(h). The OSC re Dismissal for Failure to obtain Default Judgment is continued to [date approx. 45 days out].

BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE VS. REGINATOCase Number: 23CVG-01195This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of judgment/dismissal following a Notice of ConditionalSettlement being filed on January 3, 2025. Due to the conditional settlement, the Court removes this matter fromthe Court’s control. All future dates are vacated. No further appearances are necessary.

AMERICAN EXPRESSMOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THECVME2501512 NATIONAL BANK VSPLEADINGSMULELE AKA MWENDWATentative Ruling: Motion is GRANTED. A motion for judgment on the pleadings issubject to the same rules governing demurrers; and, like a demurrer, the grounds forthe motion must appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter ofwhich the judge is required to take judicial notice. (CCP 438(d); Hardy v. America's BestHome Loans (2014) 232 Cal.App4th 795, 802.) The court finds Ps complaint statesfacts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant, and the answer doesnot state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint. (CCP 438(b)(1),(c)(1)(A).) Therefore, Plaintiff's motion is therefore granted. Court to sign proposedorder granting the motion and moving party to submit a proposed judgment.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.CVSW2404213 MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSALVS HERNANDEZTentative Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.The court’s notes from the January 9, 2025 hearing indicate there was a MandatorySettlement Conference and Court Trial set at 1:30 p.m. Plaintiff nor Plaintiff’s counselchecked in with my court clerk. The trial was called at 2:06 p.m., which Defendant waspresent and no appearance by Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s counsel.The court read the Declaration of Gloria Zarco which reads:“Plaintiff’s counsel was present on the day of trial but had stepped out of thecourtroom to discuss settlement with another Defendant in a separate matter. Asa result, Plaintiff’s counsel inadvertently missed the present matter being calledbefore the court, and the court dismissed the case with prejudice.”Maybe Ms. Zarco has the facts of this case mixed up with another case. The factspresented in the Declaration are contrary to the court’s notes and what was memorializedin the January 9, 2025 minute order.Further, it was also appear that Plaintiff would have filed this Motion to Set AsideDismissal shortly after the January 9, 2025 court trial hearing date and not waiting untilMay 23, 2025 to file said motion. Ms. Zarco’s Declaration does not give any explanationfor the reason of an almost 5 month delay in filing said motion.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSALCVCO2303193 BANK OF AMERICA VS BAKER ON 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT FORCOLLECTIONS BY BANK OF AMERICATentative Ruling: Granted. Case will be set for an OSC re: sanctions for failure to file adefault judgement 90 days out. Plaintiff to resubmit default judgement.