Garvin et al v. Tran, et al, No. 5:2007cv01571 - Document 352 (N.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING JUAN AND MARIA RAMIREZ'S APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 300 , and JUDGMENT in favor of Juan Ramirez, Maria C. Ramirez against Golden Hills Associates, Inc. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 11/16/11. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2011)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Garvin et al v. Tran, et al Doc. 352 1 ** E-filed November 16, 2011 ** 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 For the Northern District of California NOT FOR CITATION 8 United States District Court 7 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 MARIA A. GARVIN; ET AL, Plaintiffs, 12 v. 13 14 15 16 LINDA TRAN, an individual; ABSOLUTE INVESTMENT GROUP, a California corporatiob dba PALACIO MORTGAGE; ET AL., No. C07-01571 HRL ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS JUAN RAMIREZ AND MARIA RAMIREZ’S APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT [Re: Docket No. 300] Defendants. ____________________________________/ 17 In this predatory home loan action, numerous plaintiffs have alleged fraud, breach of 18 fiduciary duty, negligence, conspiracy to defraud, and violations of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 19 et seq against a variety of defendants involved in home sales and loans. See generally, Docket No. 20 50 (“Second Amended Complaint” or “SAC”). Defendant Norma Valdovinos, through her 21 company, Golden Hills Associates dba Century 21 Golden Hills, acted as plaintiffs’ real estate 22 agent, and then directed plaintiffs to Linda Tran, a mortgage broker, for their loan applications. Id. 23 ¶¶ 2-3. Plaintiffs allege that defendants preyed upon them through predatory and abusive lending 24 practices, which included making misrepresentations about essential terms of loans, using bait-and25 switch tactics and duress, charging unreasonable and unearned fees, falsifying information on loan 26 applications, failing to translate important loan documents from English to Spanish, and including 27 unexpected terms allowing for balloon payments, prepayment penalties, and negative amortization. 28 Id. Dockets.Justia.com 1 Defendant Golden Hills Associates dba Century 21 Golden Hills (“Golden Hills”) was No. 8. Golden Hills filed an Answer to the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on August 3, 2007. 4 Docket No. 35. Golden Hills also filed an Answer to the SAC on December 17, 2007. Docket No. 5 74. Plaintiffs then propounded written discovery requests on Golden Hills, to which Golden Hills 6 failed to respond. Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories they had served 7 on Golden Hills. Docket No. 186. The court granted the Motion to Compel, and then granted 8 plaintiffs’ subsequent Motion for Sanctions and struck Golden Hills’s Answer when it failed to 9 respond. Docket Nos. 193, 203, 218. Plaintiffs then requested the Clerk of Court to enter default 10 For the Northern District of California served with the original Complaint and summons on April 11, 2007, but filed no answer. Docket 3 United States District Court 2 against Golden Hills, which the Clerk did enter on May 10, 2011. Docket No. 275. Plaintiffs Juan 11 and Maria Ramirez then filed the instant Application for an Order Entering Default Judgment 12 against Golden Hills. Docket No. 300. Golden Hills has not filed an opposition or otherwise 13 appeared since filing its Answer to the SAC. 14 Based on the moving papers and arguments presented by plaintiff at hearing on October 25, 15 2011, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs Juan and Maria Ramirez’s motion for entry of default judgment 16 against Golden Hills. 17 LEGAL STANDARD 18 After entry of default by the Clerk, courts are authorized to grant default judgment in their 19 discretion. See FED. R. CIV. P. 55; Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). A court 20 may consider the following factors in deciding whether to enter default judgment: (1) the possibility 21 of prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) the merits of the plaintiff’s substantive claim; (3) the sufficiency of 22 the complaint; (4) the sum of money at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning 23 material facts; (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect; and (7) the strong policy 24 underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. Eitel v. McCool, 25 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). In considering these factors, all factual allegations in the 26 plaintiff’s complaint are taken as true, except those relating to damages. TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. 27 Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987). When the damages claimed are not readily 28 ascertainable from the pleadings and the record, the court may conduct a hearing to conduct an 2 1 accounting, determine the amount of damages, establish the truth of any allegation by evidence, or 2 investigate any other matter. FED. R. CIV. P. 55(b)(2). 3 DISCUSSION 4 A. Entry of Default Judgment 5 All of the Eitel factors favor entry of default judgment. Plaintiffs’ claims have merit and are liability are taken as true except as to the amount of damages. Fair Hous. of Marin v. Combs, 8 285 F.3d 899, 906 (9th Cir. 2002); Geddes v. United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977). 9 Here, the Clerk entered default against Golden Hills on May 10, 2011. Upon review of Plaintiffs’ 10 For the Northern District of California sufficiently pled. Once the Clerk of Court enters default, all well-pleaded allegations regarding 7 United States District Court 6 SAC, the court finds that the Ramirezes adequately alleged each of their causes of action. Since all 11 liability-related allegations are taken as true, there can be no dispute over material facts. Further, 12 plaintiffs would be prejudiced if default is not entered against Golden Hills. Since defendant has 13 failed to participate in this action (and there is no indication that its failure to do so is due to 14 excusable neglect), plaintiffs’ only recourse is a default judgment. While this court prefers to decide 15 matters on the merits, defendants’ refusal to participate meaningfully in this litigation renders that 16 impossible. Finally, “default judgment is disfavored when a large amount of money is . . . 17 unreasonable in light of defendant’s actions.” United States v. Ordonez, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18 50765, *6 (E.D. Cal. May 11, 2011) (finding that over $300,000 was appropriate for resolution by 19 default judgment when plaintiff’s allegations supported the sum). Here, the sum of money 20 requested, while not insignificant, is small enough to make this matter appropriate for resolution by 21 default judgment. 22 23 Therefore, the court GRANTS Juan and Maria Ramirez’s application for default judgment against Golden Hills. 24 B. Damages Requested 25 Plaintiffs request that the default judgment be entered against Golden Hills for $74,548.00. 26 Unlike liability-related allegations, allegations related to damages are not taken as true upon entry of 27 default against a defendant. Plaintiffs must therefore “prove up” the amount of damages they seek. 28 Here, plaintiffs seek damages for all of the following: 3 1 1. Mr. Ramirez paid $12,192 in property taxes that he would not have incurred but for 2 purchasing the home; 3 2. Mr. Ramirez paid $650 in homeowners insurance that he would not have incurred but for 4 purchasing the home; 5 3. Mr. Ramirez paid a deposit of $3,500 for the home; 6 4. Mr. Ramirez paid $3,861 in water and trash, which he did not pay before he purchased the 7 home, and he has not paid since he returned to renting; 8 5. The home was in very poor condition, and Mr. Ramirez had to pay $1,750 in home repairs 9 that he would not have incurred but for purchasing the home; For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 6. Norma Valdovinos and Golden Hills received a commission of $19,410 in the transaction; 11 7. Linda Tran received a $7,279 broker fees, $320 in "other fees," and $14,588 in yield 12 spread premium (“YSP”) (See Docket No. 303, Exh. 1, HUD-1 form); 13 8. Mr. Ramirez’s credit before this happened was very good, approximately 728. Now, he 14 has had credit cards not renewed. He has paid $4,707 in total to pay those cards off; 15 9. The Ramirezes were rejected from apartments because of their credit, and the place where 16 they now live is much more expensive than their rental prior to purchasing the home. Since 17 January of 2009, Mr. Ramirez believes he has had to pay $10,000 more in rent than he 18 would have otherwise; 19 11. Mr. Ramirez had to pay $890 in moving costs in and out of the house; and 20 12. Mr. Ramirez has had to pay $108 in co-pays for medical insurance for Mrs. Ramirez’s 21 therapist. Mrs. Ramirez began seeing the therapist when they were losing the home. 22 23 24 See generally, Docket Nos. 302, 303 (Ramirez Declarations). The court is satisfied that plaintiffs have provided sufficient evidence to prove the damages they request. The court awards plaintiffs $82,322.00 in damages. 25 CONCLUSION 26 Default Judgment is hereby ENTERED in favor of Plaintiffs Juan and Maria Ramirez jointly 27 and severally and against Defendants Golden Hills Associates, Inc., dba Century 21 Golden Hills in 28 the amount of $74,548.00. 4 1 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 16, 2011 HOWARD R. LLOYD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 1 C07-01571 HRL Notice will be electronically mailed to: 2 Alisha Mei Yuk Louie Annette D. Kirkham Cindy Hamilton Jessica Lynn Fry 3 4 7 Karen Rosenthal Kimberly Pederson Kyra Ann Kazantzis Shawn Robert Parr William Cornelius Last , Jr William J. Goines 8 Notice will be mailed to: 9 Raya Ghajar 1101 Salerno Drive Campbell, CA 95008 5 6 10 For the Northern District of California United States District Court alouie@sideman.com annettek@lawfoundation.org, teresam@lawfoundation.org hamiltonc@gtlaw.com, sandiferc@gtlaw.com, svlitdock@gtlaw.com jessicaf@lawfoundation.org, nuemig@lawfoundation.org, teresam@lawfoundation.org rosenthalk@gtlaw.com, sandiferc@gtlaw.com, svlitdock@gtlaw.com kimp@lawfoundation.org, teresam@lawfoundation.org kyrak@lawfoundation.org shawn@parrlawgroup.com, donna@parrlawgroup.com wclast@lastlawfirm.com goinesw@gtlaw.com, sandiferc@gtlaw.com, svlitdock@gtlaw.com 11 Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
