CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:25-cv-01972-SSC Date: August 26, 2025 Title Marquise Bailey v. H P Auto Parts Inc., et al.

Present: The Honorable Stephanie S. Christensen, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Teagan Snyder n/a Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: None Present None Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order to Show Cause Why Motion for Default Judgment (ECF 16) Should Not Be Denied

On August 14, 2025, Plaintiff moved for default judgment against Defendants H P Auto Parts Inc. and Efrain E. Gonzalez, as trustee of the Gonzalez family trust (collectively, Defendants). (ECF 16.)

The complaint alleges, “Defendants are, or were at the time of the incident, the real property owners, business operators, lessors and/or lessees of the real property for an auto parts store (‘Business’) located at or about 2461 Slauson Ave., Huntington Park, California.” (ECF 1 at 2.) In the motion, Counsel further represents that his office:

conducted a public records search in order to ascertain the owners and operators of the facility that is the subject of this litigation. Based on this search and the records located, our office

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:25-cv-01972-SSC Date: August 26, 2025 Title Marquise Bailey v. H P Auto Parts Inc., et al.

determined, to the best of our knowledge, that Defendant H P AUTO PARTS INC. owns and operates the Business, and Defendant EFRAIN E. GONZALEZ, AS TRUSTEE OF THE GONZALEZ FAMILY TRUST owns the real property, located at or about 2461 Slauson Ave., Huntington Park, California, that is the subject of this lawsuit on the date complained of by Plaintiff.

(ECF 16-2 at 2.)

In support of his request for attorney’s fees and costs, Counsel attaches an itemized billing statement, which includes an entry referencing a “[d]eed search” conducted by a paralegal. (Id. at 5.) The exhibit also includes, as a listed expense, an entry for a “[d]eed purchase.” (Id. at 6.)

However, no deed is attached to the motion. Absent such, Plaintiff has not carried his burden to allege that Defendants own and operate the subject property. See Doering v. Baasch, No. 2:24-cv-03424-JLS- BFM, 2024 WL 4868647, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2024).

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, no later than September 3, 2025, why the motion for default judgment (ECF 16) should not be denied.

The Court also VACATES the hearing on the motion for default judgment set for September 16, 2025. A default judgment may be entered without a hearing if the amount claimed is “capable of mathematical calculation.” Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1161 (9th Cir. 1981) (citation omitted). The Court finds that the amount claimed in this matter is capable of mathematical calculation.

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:25-cv-01972-SSC Date: August 26, 2025 Title Marquise Bailey v. H P Auto Parts Inc., et al.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

: Initials of Preparer ts