Department 58

Hearing Date: August 24, 2022

Case Name: SKT Melrose, LLC v. Sergio Armenta, et al.

Case No.: 22STCV04015

Matter: Default Judgment Application

Moving Party: Plaintiff SKT Melrose LLC

Responding Party: Unopposed

TENTATIVE RULING

The Default Judgment is granted for a total amount of $60,637.35, representing $55,887.50 in damages, $4,000.00 in attorney’s fees, and $749.85 in costs.

STATEMENT OF CASE

This is an action for unpaid rent in a commercial lease. On February 1, 2022, Plaintiff SKT Melrose, LLC filed the Complaint against Defendants Sergio Armenta, Nayeli Lozano, and Rocio Armenta, individually and dba Shyo Original Ramen for breach of contract.

The clerk entered default on March 21, 2022, against Rocio Armenta, individually and dba Shyo Original Ramen. On May 24, 2022, the clerk entered defaults against Nayeli Lozano and Sergio Armenta. The “Doe” defendants were dismissed on July 21, 2022.

Plaintiff now seeks a default judgment against all Defendants.

SUMMARY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT REQUEST

Compensatory Damages: $55,887.50
Prejudgment Interest (10% per year): $2,652.04
Costs: $749.85
Attorney’s Fees: $5,115.00
Total: $64,404.39

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

Use of JC Form CIV-100 YES
Dismissal or judgment of non-parties to the judgment YES
Declaration of non-military status for each defendant YES
Summary of the case YES
585(d) declarations/admissible evidence in support YES
Exhibits (as necessary) YES
Interest computation (as necessary) NO
Cost memorandum YES
Request for attorney fees (Local Rule 3.214) YES
Proposed judgment (JUD-100) YES

DISCUSSION

Damages

Plaintiff seeks a total of $55,887.50 for unpaid rent between April 2020 and December 2021. Shirin Mehrian, manager of SKT Melrose LLC, attests to the authenticity of the lease agreement. (Mehrian Decl., ¶¶ 2-6.) The agreement indicates that rent would be $3,250.00 per month. The declaration indicates that Defendants were charged $3,412.50. There is no explanation as to this $162.50 difference. Plaintiff should be prepared to articulate why an additional $162.50 was imposed every month.

Nonetheless, because the Complaint puts Defendant on notice of the total amount of $55,887.50, the Court grants this amount.

Interest

Plaintiff also seeks 10% interest per year, the statutory percentage allowable under Civil Code section 3289 for breach of contract claims. The total amount sought in interest is $2,652.04 between December 1, 2021 and July 15, 2022. However, Plaintiff does not provide the calculation pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a)(3). Moreover, the Complaint failed to plead for interest. (Complaint, ¶ 10(b).) As such, the Court declines to award any interest.

Attorney’s Fees

The Complaint pleads for attorney’s fees. Paragraph 31 of the “Standard Industrial/Commercial Multi-Tenant Lease” states:

31. Attorneys’ Fees. If any Party or Broker brings an action or proceeding involving the Premises whether founded in tort, contract or equity, or to declare rights hereunder, the Prevailing Party (as hereinafter defined) in any such proceeding, action, or appeal thereon, shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees. Such fees may be awarded in the same suit or recovered in a separate suit, whether or not such action or proceeding is pursuant to decision of judgment. The term, “Prevailing Party” shall include, without limitation, a Party or Broker who substantially obtains or defeats the relief sought, as the case may be, whether by compromise, settlement, judgment, or the abandonment by the other Party or Broker of its claims or defense. The attorneys’ fees award shall not be computed in accordance with any court fee schedule, but shall be such as to fully reimburse all attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred. In addition, Lessor shall be entitled to attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses incurred in the preparation and service of notices of Default and consultations in connection therewith, whether or not a legal action is subsequently commenced in connection with such Default or resulting Breach ($200 is a reasonable minimum per occurrence for such services and consultation). (Mehrian Decl., Ex. 1, italics added.)

Under Los Angeles County Local Rule 3.214, subdivision (a), the calculation for the fee is $1,890.00 plus 2% of the judgment in excess of $50,000.00. In this case, it would be 2% of $5,887.50, which is $117.75 + $1,890.00 = $2,007.75. However, the parties have contracted around this schedule and Plaintiff requests $5,115.00 at a rate of $550.00 per hour. Counsel provides her declaration and an itemized statement. (Pugh Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. 2.)

The billing entries appear to have some questionable entries. For example, there are numerous duplicate entries for “Default” without further specification; moreover, there are four entries for “Default” but only three defendants. Other entries such as “Email” is similarly vague. Overall, given that this case was straightforward and did not include any complex issues, the Court exercises its discretion and awards a total of $4,000.00.

Costs

Plaintiff requests $749.85 in costs, representing $435.00 in filing fees, $181.17 for process server’s fees, and $133.68 in e-filing fees. These fees are authorized under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1033.5, subdivisions (a)(1), (a)(4), and (a)(14). Accordingly, the Court grants these amounts.