In February 2007, Fink filed a complaint containing claims for breach of contract and fraud against Moses Shemtov, his wife Mary Shemtov, S&E Stone, Inc., and Amota Properties, LLC. As discussed post, at this stage in the litigation and because our record does not show Fink was provided notice that judgment might be entered in defendants favor, the trial court should not have entered judgment in defendants favor. The only remaining issue before us is the judgment entered in defendants favor. Finks challenges to the trial courts handling of the default judgment prove-up hearing and the amount awarded in the default judgment entered against Moses Shemtov on the breach of contract claim are therefore moot. ![]() The trial court entered default judgment against Moses Shemtov as to Finks breach of contract claim, but otherwise entered judgment in favor of defendants.Īfter Fink filed a notice of appeal from the courts judgment, the trial court vacated the default judgment on the ground Fink failed to notify defendants counsel that he was requesting the default. (defendants), Fink requested that default judgment be entered. After default was entered against Moses Shemtov, Mary Shemtov, and S&E Stone, Inc. Plaintiff David Fink filed a complaint for breach of contract and fraud against defendants Moses Shemtov, Mary Shemtov, S&E Stone, Inc., and Amota Properties, LLC. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAĪppeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Charles Margines, Judge. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. ![]() 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).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |