Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 24STCV05990, Date: 2024-10-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV05990    Hearing Date: October 8, 2024    Dept: 52

Order to Show Cause Re: Entry of Default Judgment

Plaintiff David Calderon requests court judgment by default against defendants Spacex Construction, Inc. and Marco Antonio Diazdelarosa.  The application for default judgment has three defects.

First, plaintiff did not request dismissal of Does 1-100.  A request for default judgment must include “[a] dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under Code of Civil Procedure section 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a)(7).)  Plaintiff does not seek default judgment against the Doe defendants and therefore must dismiss them.

Second, plaintiff did not submit a proper proposed judgment.  Plaintiff submitted a proposed “order for judgment and court’s acceptance of copies in lieu of originals.”  Plaintiff does not identify the copies referred to.  No such order is necessary.  The court will require plaintiff to submit a proposed judgment on Judicial Council form JUD-100.

Third, plaintiff requests excessive attorney fees of $69,810.  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).)  For a judgment from “$10,000.01 to $50,000,” the schedule provides for fees of “$690 plus 3% of the excess over $10,000.  (Local Rule 3.214(a).)  Under this schedule, plaintiff may recover $1,699.15 in attorney fees.

A plaintiff may recover “a fee greater than listed in the [default] schedule because of extraordinary services.”  (3.214(d).)  Plaintiff does not show extraordinary services justifying a fee greater than the schedule.

Even if the court found plaintiff may recover fees greater than the schedule, plaintiff’s lodestar is unreasonable.  For example, the lodestar includes “$26,000 for 40 hours” anticipated for “follow-up work for the Request for Court Judgment … and efforts to enforce the judgment.”  (Gonzalez Decl., ¶ 41.)  Plaintiff cannot recover tens of thousands of dollars for attorney fees anticipated enforcing a judgment that has not been entered.  After plaintiff obtains judgment, he may enforce it, then move for attorney fees as permitted under the Enforcement of Judgments Law.

Plaintiff’s request for default judgment is denied without prejudice.  The court hereby continues the order to show cause re: entry of default judgment to December 5, 2024, at 8:30 a.m.  Plaintiff shall submit a revised application for default judgment that corrects the above issues no later than November 18, 2024.