Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case 22STCV24951 2023-04-24 Tentative Ruling

CASE NAME: Monica Gabriella Renna v. Rene Quevedo, et al.

CASE NUMBER: 22STCV24951

DATE FILED: 8/2/2022

TRIAL DATE: None

CALENDAR NUMBER: 5

PROCEEDING: Application for Default Judgment

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Monica Renna

On August 2, 2022, Plaintiff Monica Gabriella Renna, also known as Nicki Renna, sued Defendants Rene Quevedo, Yirvin Joyser Ramos, Jody Electric, Inc., and Does 1 through 30, inclusive, alleging (1) disgorgement of payments to unlicensed contractor; (2) breach of the implied warranty; (3) negligent construction; and (4) fraud.

Plaintiff retained Defendant Quevedo in or around August of 2021 to construct a large-roofed pavilion, garage remodel requiring new foundation, reinforced walls, a new roof and new bathroom. The scope of the work further required support items like sump pumps and electrical work. (“Home Improvement Remodel Work”). (See Renna Dec. ¶ 15; Compl. ¶ 12.)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Quevedo does not hold any license with the California Contractors State License Board. Thus, he cannot accept payment for any contractor related services performed in the State of California. (Cohen Dec. ¶ 8; Compl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff claims the work performed by Defendant Quevedo was defective and incomplete, and that Defendant Quevedo and his crew took Plaintiff’s personal property items.

Defendant Quevedo was served on August 13, 2022, with the proof of filed on August 18, 2022. On September 27, 2022, default was entered against him. (Cohen Dec. ¶ 2.)

Defendants Yirvin Joyser Ramos, an individual, and Jody Electric, Inc. a California Corporation were dismissed pursuant to a settlement agreement. Dismissal of Ramos and Jody Electric was entered on March 15, 2023. (Cohen Dec. ¶ 3.)

On March 15, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff to submit a default packet for entry of judgment by April 14, 2023. On April 11, 2023, Plaintiff submitted her default judgment packet.

“Plaintiffs in a default judgment proceeding must prove they are entitled to the damages claimed.” (Barragan v. Banco BCH (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 283, 302, citing Code Civ. Proc., § 585 & Taliaferro v. Hoogs (1963) 219 Cal.App.2d 559, 560.) If evidence is presented by declaration, the facts must be shown to be “within the personal knowledge of the affiant and shall be set forth with particularity, and each affidavit shall show affirmatively that the affiant, if sworn as a witness, can testify competently thereto.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 585, subd. (d).)

To support her claim for damages, prejudgment interest, costs, and attorney’s fees, Plaintiff provides the Declaration of Monica Gabriella Rena, the Declaration of Loren N. Cohen, Statement of the Case, her request for default judgment, and a cost memorandum.

With regard to the damages requested, Plaintiff seeks $151,050.87, which consists of $141,050.87 for disgorgement of payment received pursuant to California Business Code section 7031(b) and $10,000.00 for treble damages pursuant to California Civil Code section 1029.8 (a)-(c). (Request for Judgment; Statement of the Case; Renna Decl.; Cohen Decl.)

“Contractors in California are governed by the Contractors’ State License Law (the contractors’ law). ([B&P Code] § 7000 et seq.) Under that law, all contractors must be licensed by the Board. If the contractor is an individual, that individual must qualify for a license by passing a written examination to show that he or she has the requisite degree of knowledge and experience in the classification applied for and general knowledge of the building, safety, health, and lien laws of the state. (§§ 7065, subd. (a), 7068, subd. (a).)” (Eisenberg Village of Los Angeles Jewish Home for the Aging v. Suffolk Construction Company, Inc. (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 1201, 1205-1206 (Eisenberg Village).)

California Business and Professions Code section 7031 (b) allows an individual to bring an action against un unlicensed contractor and recover reimbursement or disgorgement of payments. It provides: “Except as provided in subdivision (e), a person who utilizes the services of an unlicensed contractor may bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction in this state to recover all compensation paid to the unlicensed contractor for performance of any act or contract.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 7031 [Subd. (e) addresses substantial compliance with licensure requirements, and is not at issue here.].) “Section 7031(b) does not require the plaintiff seeking disgorgement to have suffered any injury. That is because ‘[s]ection 7031 represents a legislative determination that the importance of deterring unlicensed persons from engaging in the contracting business outweighs any harshness between the parties, and that such deterrence can best be realized by denying violators the right to maintain any action for compensation [or requiring them to disgorge compensation already paid].’ [Citations.] (internal quotations removed). (Eisenberg Village, supra, 53 Cal.App.5th at p. 1207.)

Here, Plaintiff provides evidence that Defendant Quevedo is not a licensed contractor in the State of California, that he failed to provide a written contract in compliance with California Business and Professions code § 7151.2 and § 7159, and that he violated the following Business and Professions Code: (a) abandonment of project prior to completion. (B&P Code § 7107); (b) departed from accepted trade standards in construction. (B&P Code § 7110); (c) failed to complete for agreed pricing. (B&P Code § 7113; (d) entered contract as unlicensed contractor. (B&P Code § 7118; and (d) failed to provide written home improvement contract (B&P Code § 7159). (Renna Decl.) Plaintiff has established that she paid Quevedo payments from August 2021 to March 2022, totaling $141,050.82. (Renna Decl. ¶17.) The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to the requested damages under California Business and Professions Code section 7031 (b). The Court notes that Plaintiff’s claim of $141,050.82 in paragraph 17 of her declaration does not match the amount requested in the request for judgment or other portions of her declaration, statement of the case, and the Cohen Declaration, which seek a disgorgement of payment in the amount of $141,050.87. However, given that the trivial nature of the discrepancies, the request in the Proposed Judgment is granted.

With regard to prejudgment interest, Plaintiff seeks $14,375.60, which represents interest accrual from March 29, 2022, the date of the last payment made to Quevedo, to April 5, 2023. The prejudgment interest is calculated at the legal rate of 10 percent per annum on the amount of $141,050.87. (Cohen Decl.) Per diem interest of $ 38.64 is calculated at $141,050.87 x 10% / 365. Plaintiff also requests per diem interest from April 5, 2023, to the date of entry of Judgment. This amount is consistent among the declarations filed and the request for judgment, the proposed judgment provides a different amount of $14,374.00. However, given that the trivial nature of the discrepancies, the request in the Proposed Judgment is granted.

With regard to attorney’s fees, Plaintiff requests $3,400.50 pursuant to Local Rule 3.214. California Civil Code sections 1029.8(a) states that “[t]he court may, in its discretion, award all costs and attorney’s fees to the injured person if that person prevails in the action.” The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees. The Court notes that the requested amount again differs from the proposed judgment, which states an amount of $3,400.00. However, given that the trivial nature of the discrepancies, the request in the Proposed Judgment is granted.

Plaintiff’s request for $435.00 in costs, representing filing and motion fees, is recoverable. (See Plaintiff’s Request for Entry of Default, Memorandum of Costs, Cohen Decl., Renna Decl.) Therefore, the request is granted.

In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request for default judgment is granted as set forth in Plaintiff’s Proposed Judgment.