Department 58

Hearing Date: April 18, 2023

Case Name: Beautiful Habitat LLC v. CSM Development LLC, et al.

Case No.: 21STCV32840

Matter: Default Judgment prove-up

Moving Party: Plaintiff Beautiful Habitat LLC

Responding Party: Unopposed

Tentative Ruling: The request for default judgment is denied.

Background and procedural history

Plaintiff Beautiful Habitat sued CSM Development LLC and Maria Del Socorro Rodriguez Mendoza, asserting a single cause of action for breach of contract. Plaintiff alleges it loaned Defendants $54,386.42 to improve residential property. The terms called for Defendants to repay Plaintiff $81,579.63 on September 18, 2020. Defendants eventually sold the property at a profit but failed to repay Plaintiff any amount.

Default was entered against both individual Defendants on February 28, 2022. A few OSC re default judgment hearings have been continued since then. The Doe defendants have not been dismissed. On March 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a declaration and proposed judgment, and the Court scheduled this OSC.

Discussion

A party seeking a default judgment “must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Application to Enter Default) (form CIV-100), unless the action is subject to the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq., in which case the party must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Fair Debt Buying Practices Act) (form CIV-105).” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a).) “The following must be included in the documents filed with the clerk: (1) Except in unlawful detainer cases, a brief summary of the case identifying the parties and the nature of plaintiff's claim; (2) Declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3) Interest computations as necessary; (4) A memorandum of costs and disbursements; (5) A declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant against whom judgment is sought; (6) A proposed form of judgment; (7) 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; (8) Exhibits as necessary; and (9) A request for attorney fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties.” (Id. Rule 3.1800, subd. (a)(1)-(9).)

Plaintiff’s request for default judgment suffers from the following deficiencies: First, Plaintiff has not dismissed Does 1-50. Plaintiff must dismiss the doe defendants before the Court can enter judgment against the identified Defendants.

Second, Plaintiff seeks $15,638.00 interest but does not provide a calculation. The only details Plaintiff provides is a single line stating that interest was calculated “at the legal rate of 10% through 3-1-23” and additional line listing “$15.11 Daily interest after 3-1-23.” (Mejia Decl., ¶ 19.) It’s unclear from which date Plaintiff is calculating interest and whether Plaintiff is seeking the $15.11 in daily interest mentioned. A more detailed calculation is required.

Third, Plaintiff seeks $8,000 in attorney’s fees but does not provide enough justification for the fees. The only explanation Plaintiff offers is that “Plaintiff retained Gomez & Simone APLC ("G&S") to file the Complaint against Defendants and pursue collection and paid more than $8,000 for their services and then retained CRAIG M. LYTLE to further purse this case.” (Mejia Decl., ¶ 17.) Plaintiff does not provide a bill or a declaration from G&S attesting to their hourly rate and hours billed. Local Rule 3.214 provides a schedule of attorney’s fees that can be recovered in default contract cases. The amount allowed by Local Rule 3.214 is significantly less than the amount sought by Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the Court denies the request for default judgment without prejudice to allow Plaintiff to address the aforementioned deficiencies. At the hearing the Court will set a continued date for this OSC and a date for Plaintiff to submit an amended default package.