Judge: Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case: 21STCV43341, Date: 2022-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV43341    Hearing Date: August 25, 2022    Dept: 58

JUDGE BRUCE G. IWASAKI

Hearing Date:             August 25, 2022

Case Name:                639 Fairfax Avenue TIC I LLC v. Tacius L. Payne et al.

Case No.:                    21STCV43341

Matter:                        Request for Entry of Default Judgment

Moving Party:             Plaintiff 639 Fairfax Avenue TIC I LLC

On March 25, 2022, the Court denied the request for entry of default judgment and specified its reasons.  On August 15, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel filed three new documents: a proposed judgment, request for dismissal of Doe defendants, and a request for entry of judgment.  However, Plaintiff did not provide any declarations and the concerns previously identified were not addressed.  Moreover, as discussed below, the recent submissions raise new issues.

TENTATIVE RULING

The request for entry of default judgment is denied without prejudice.

STATEMENT OF CASE

This is an unlawful detainer action for residential property.  639 Fairfax Avenue TIC I LLC (Plaintiff) sues Tacius L. Payne (Defendant) for past rent due of $47,586.

SUMMARY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT REQUEST

• Past-due Rent:                                              $47,586.00
• Prejudgment Interest:                                 UNKNOWN
• Costs:                                                             $670.80
• Attorney’s Fees:                                            $1,500.00
• Total:                                                              UNKNOWN

SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800)

1. Use of JC Form CIV-100                                                                                            YES
2. Dismissal or judgment of non-parties to the judgment                                              NO
3. Declaration of non-military status for each defendant                                               YES
4. Summary of the case                                                                    N/A; CRC 3.1800(a)(1)
5. 585(d) declarations/admissible evidence in support                                                  NO
6. Exhibits (as necessary)                                                                                               NO
7. Interest computation (as necessary)                                                                           N/A
8. Cost memorandum                                                                                                     YES
9. Request for attorney fees (Local Rule 3.214)                                                            YES
10. Proposed judgment                                                                                                     YES

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s attached Lease Contract indicates that a residential lease agreement was formed between Plaintiff and Defendant for the period of February 21, 2020 to March 31, 2021.  (Complaint, Ex. 1.) 

I.         Damages 

Plaintiff failed to provide any declarations or authentications regarding the lease agreement nor are any other exhibits provided in support of the requested damages.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a)(2).)

The exact amount that Plaintiff seeks is also unclear.  The complaint alleges that Defendant owes back rent of $47,586 at a rate of $113.30 per day.  (Complaint ¶¶ 12-13.)  This would mean Plaintiff is seeking back rent of 420 days; however, the lease spanned 404 days and it is not immediately clear why an additional 16 days are added.  Moreover, the Notice to Pay Rent or Quit that was mailed to Defendant indicates an amount owed of $44,187 for 13 months of rent at $3399 per month.  (Complaint, Ex. 2.)  Plaintiff also submitted a “Request for Entry of Default” form (CIV-100) requesting daily damages at a rate of $113.30 from November 1, 2021 to the date of default, March 8, 2022 ($113.30 x 127 days = $14,389.10.)  However, it is again unclear why November 1, 2021 is used as the initial date.

In addition, the complaint indicates that Plaintiff seeks attorney’s fees pursuant to the written agreement.  Counsel requests $1,500.00 in fees, but there is no calculation or explanation for the request.  (Complaint, ¶¶ 15, 19(d); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a)(9).) 

On August 15, 2022, counsel submitted a revised CIV-100 request for court judgment.  Counsel now requests a daily damage at a rate of $133.30 from November 1, 2021, but still fails to indicate why November 1, 2021 is an appropriate date.  In addition, Plaintiff seeks $16,135.20 in special damages, but fails to provide any supporting evidence.

Finally, Plaintiff did not provide a proposed judgment.  A Request for Dismissal of the Doe Defendants was submitted, but the clerk has not entered the dismissal yet.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subds. (a)(6)-(7).)

The request for default judgment against Defendant is therefore denied without prejudice.  At the hearing the Court will set a further order to show cause re entry of default judgment.