Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 21STCV07013, Date: 2022-10-26 Tentative Ruling

Please notify Department 52 via email at smcdept52@lacourt.org and indicate that the parties are submitting on the tentative ruling. Please provide the attorney's name and represented party. Please notify the opposing side via email if submitting on the Court's tentative ruling.

Case Number: 21STCV07013    Hearing Date: October 26, 2022    Dept: 52

12/10/21: Plaintiff Weber & Associates, Inc. filed a complaint against defendants Erik Zepeda Castaneda and Does 1-10 for:

1. Open Book Account; 2. Account Stated; 3. Services Rendered

           Plaintiff Weber & Associates is a collection agency.  Its assignor, Brian Lugo M.D. Corporation, provided medical services to defendant Erik Zepeda Castaneda.  Defendant owes a balance of $50,390.82, plus 10% interest.

Prior Hearings:

Analysis & Checklist:      

Quiet Title Actions require oral prove-up hearing.  (CCP § 764.010; LASCR 3.201(b))

See CRC Rule 3.1800 for required documents:  

Note:  Defaulting defendants must be allowed to put on evidence at the oral prove-up hearing.  See CCP §764.010 and Nickell v. Matlock, 206 Cal. App. 4th 934, 943-944 (2012).

[ X ]   Default Entered on:

2/14/22: Erik Zepeda Castaneda

[ X ]   Service of Complaint:                   [  ]           Personal        (CCP 415.10)

                                                                [  ]           Corporation (CCP 416.10)

[ X ] Substitute Service (CCP 415.20)

                                                                           If not at home, decl. of diligence? Yes

                                                                           First-class mailing to defendant? Yes

[  ] Publication (CCP 415.50/Govt. §6064)

                                                                           If served in this manner, decl. pursuant

                                                                           to CCP §587?    (LASCR 3.203) 

Substituted service on “Daniel Doe – occupant” on 12/27/21 at 1572 Falcon Dr., Apt. 2, Salinas, CA 93905.  Adequate declaration of diligence by registered process server. 

[ X ]   Service of Default Application–Additional Requirements:

[ X ]   Declaration of Mailing (CCP 587)

           [  ]      Proof of Publication (CCP 585(c))

[ X ]   No Pending Motion to Vacate Entry of Default

[ X ]   Relief Prayed for in Complaint:

[ X ] Compensatory  $50,390.82

                     [  ] Equitable relief                       

                     [  ] Medicals                                            $ -

                     [  ] Lost wages                                         $ -

                      [ X ] Attorney fees                                  

[ X ] Interest                                           

[  ] Punitive damages         

(All relief afforded in default judgment is limited to type and amount of claims pleaded in complaint, except for punitives and PI/Death.  See CCP §§ 425.11, 580, 585(a)(b).  Relief in an action for quiet title must be proven up by live, oral testimony.  See CCP §764.010.)

[ ! ]     Complaint states a valid claim and cause of action against defaulting defendant(s)?

The complaint straddles the line on stating sufficient facts.  It alleges almost entirely conclusions and no details.  It says the debt was incurred within four years of the action, but no specific date.  If the defendant demurred, maybe that would be sustained.  On a default, the court finds it is enough.

[ X ]   Summary of Case — Not required in unlawful detainer cases (CRC 3.1800(a)(1))

[ X ]   Request for Application of Court Judgment — (Judicial Council Form CIV-100), CRC Rule 3.1800 (a))

[ X ]   Evidentiary Declarations/Other Appropriate Evidence (CRC 3.1800(a)(2))   

Plaintiff submitted the declaration of Valerie Kwan, the practice administrator for plaintiff’s assignor, Brian Lugo, M.D.  Dr. Lugo hired her company, NAMCO Enterprises, a third-party billing service for physicians.  She attests to the accuracy of the account statement showing plaintiff owed $50,390.82. 

[ n/a ]  Interest Computations: by the contract or 10% per annum (CC §3289(b) and CRC 3.1800(a)(3))

(Check usury law to make sure interest rate in loan contracts does not exceed 10%.  See LASCLR 3.206.)

None claimed.

[ X ]   Memo of Costs and Disbursements (CRC 3.1800(a)(4), and CRC 3.1700)

           Includes attorney fees.

[ X ]   Declaration of Non-Military Status (CRC 3.1800(A)(5))

[ X ]   Proposed Form of Judgment Included (CRC 3.1800(a)(6))

[ X ]   Request for dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought (includes Does) or application for separate judgment

           (CRC 3.1800(a)(7) and CCP §579)

Does dismissed on October 12.

[ n/a ]  Exhibits (originals) — Conform with Rules; For loan contracts and promissory notes, originals must be included for cancellation (CRC 3.1800(a)(8) and CRC 3.1806 – HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. v. Aguilar, 205 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 6, *10 (2012) [court explains that CRC Rule 3.1806 is N/A and original is not required in credit card agreement action]; LASCR 3.204)  

           [  ]  If no originals, declaration explaining loss/destruction/unavailability of originals

           [  ]  Proposed order to accept authenticated copy in lieu of originals      

[ ! ]     Attorney Fees (Request over schedule in Local Rules? CRC 3.1800(a)(9), CRC 3.1800(b), and LASCR 3.214 and 3.207)  

$1,890 is right.  For damages between $50,000 and $100,000, the schedule provides for $1,890 plus 2% of the excess over $50,000 in fees.  The damages here are just over $50,000.

The problem is that plaintiff neither alleges breach of contract nor submitted a copy of a contract showing it has an attorney fee provision.  “Recovery of costs provided by contract must be specially pleaded.”  (Hsu v. Semiconductor Systems, Inc. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1330, 1341.) 

[ n/a ]  Statement of Damages                  [For personal injury or wrongful death cases CCP §425.11]

                                                                [For punitive damages cases CCP §425.115]

           [ x ]    n/a

           [  ]      PI/death case;      [  ] Punitives demanded

                     Evidence of net worth of D for punitive damages?     [  ] Yes  [  ] No

(If no evidence of D’s net worth, punitives may not be assessed.  Adams v. Murakami (1991) 54 Cal.3d 105.)

Tentative Ruling:   [  ]      Grant

                                [ X ]   Grant in part

                                [  ]      Deny without prejudice

[  ]      Continue

           Order to Show Cause Re: Default Judgment

Plaintiff Weber & Associates, Inc. requests court judgment by default against defendant Erik Zepeda Castaneda.

Plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence proving its damages of $50,390.82.  (Kwan Decl., ¶¶ 2-5, Ex. 1.) 

Plaintiff’s request, however, also includes $1,890 in attorney fees as costs.  A plaintiff may only recover attorney fees when authorized by contract, statute, or other law.  (CCP § 1033.5(a)(10).)  Plaintiff did not plead or prove any basis for recovering attorney fees.  The complaint prays for reasonable attorney fees but alleges no cause of action that permits recovering attorney fees.  The complaint alleges only common counts for (1) open book account, (2) account stated, and (3) services rendered.  The complaint does not allege a cause of action for breach of contract and does not allege that any contract would provide for attorney fees to the prevailing party in this action.

Plaintiff’s application for default judgment shows it is entitled to $50,390.82 in damages and $660 in costs for a total of $51,050.82. 

Plaintiff’s request for court judgment by default is granted in part in the amount of $51,050.82.  The court will modify and sign the proposed judgment on form JUD-100.