Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 24STCV00394, Date: 2024-07-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV00394    Hearing Date: July 11, 2024    Dept: 52

Order to Show Cause Re: Default Judgment

Plaintiff Marilyn M. Smith requests court judgment by default against defendant Steven Galindo.  Plaintiff’s application for default judgment has three defects. 

First, plaintiff did not submit a proposed form of judgment as required.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a)(6).)  The court will require plaintiff to submit a proposed judgment on Judicial Council Form JUD-100.    

Second, plaintiff seeks excessive attorney fees of $3,570.  Attorney fees for a default judgment are generally limited to a specified schedule based on the amount of the judgment.  (Local Rules 3.207(a), 3.214(a).)  A plaintiff may recover “a fee greater than listed in the [default] schedule because of extraordinary services.”  (Id., rule 3.214(d).)  Plaintiff does not show extraordinary services justifying a fee greater than the schedule.  Under the fee schedule, plaintiff’s reasonable attorney fees are: $1,890 + 2% x ($59,877.41 - $50,000) = $1,988.77. 

Third, plaintiff seeks excessive interest.  The California Constitution, Article XV, Section 1 limits interest to 10% unless an exemption applies.  Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rules, rule 3.206 provides, “If interest is requested in excess of the usury limitations of California Constitution Article XV, Section 1, proof must be presented of plaintiff’s exemption from the usury limitations unless an exemption has been pleaded in the complaint and admitted by the entry of default.”  Plaintiff seeks prejudgment interest at the rate of 12%.  She has not pleaded or proven any exemption to the limit of 10%. 

The court hereby continues the order to show cause re: default judgment to August 23, 2024, at 8:30 a.m.  Plaintiff shall file a revised application for default judgment no later than August 14, 2024.