Department 58

Hearing Date: January 24, 2024

Case Name: Morillo Construction, Inc. v. Brian & Sons Plumbing

Case No.: 22STCV25925

Matter: Default Judgment prove-up

Moving Party: Plaintiff Morillo Construction, Inc.

Responding Party: Unopposed

Ruling: The request for default judgment is denied.

This action arises from an agreement with Defendant Brian & Sons Plumbing (Defendant) to perform rough and finish plumbing for a 33-unit apartment complex. Defendant started and then abandoned this project. (Compl., ¶¶ 11-12.) The Complaint alleges, based on information and belief, Plaintiff was overbilled by $200,000 and is entitled to restitution in the sum of $26,787.90. (Compl., ¶¶ 29, 32.)

On August 23, 2022, Plaintiff dismissed Defendant National Western National Mutual Insurance Company. On September 30, 2022, Plaintiff dismissed Defendant Wells Fargo Bank. On July 6, 2023, Plaintiff dismissed East West Bank.

The Complaint was filed on August 11, 2022. On January 20, 2023, default was entered against Defendant Brian & Sons Plumbing. Does 1-15 have been dismissed.

Plaintiff now moves for entry of default judgment against Defendant Brian & Sons Plumbing. The request for entry of default judgment is denied.

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks default judgment in the amount of $1,170,643, which includes $48,352 in interest, and $19,245.45 in costs (which includes attorney fees).

Plaintiff states that it entered into an agreement with Defendant Brian & Sons Plumbing to perform all rough and finish plumbing, and related tasks for a 33-unit apartment complex at 1300 Mission Boulevard, Pomona, California 91766 (Property) and Defendant was to be paid $465,000.00 for this work. (Morillo Decl., ¶ 2.) Defendant abandoned the work on the project in October 2021 and Plaintiff was forced to engage other vendors to complete the work on the Property. (Morillo Decl., ¶ 3.) Plaintiff represents that the total amount paid to other vendors was $1,103,045.66. (Morillo Decl., ¶ 5.)

As preliminary matter, the table purporting to show the damages incurred appears to include the amounts paid to Defendant Brian & Sons Plumbing; that is, it is unclear whether this amount includes amounts for work actually performed and are therefore not recoverable as damages. Moreover, the evidence submitted is vague and conclusory as to the damages incurred. Plaintiff relies almost entirely on this table purporting to show amounts paid to other vendors, but no underlying invoice evidence was submitted or other evidence demonstrating that the underlying work was within the scope of Defendant’s work agreement. Plaintiff does not even attach its contract with Brian & Sons for the Court to understand the scope of the work. Plaintiff’s evidence is woefully inadequate.

Even assuming the evidence was adequate, the amount sought for entry of default judgment exceeds the amount requested in the prayer of the Complaint.

A default judgment “cannot exceed that demanded in the complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 580, 585, subds. (a), (b).) “[A] default judgment greater than the amount specifically demanded is void as beyond the [trial] court's jurisdiction.” (Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 826, [italics added].) A prayer for relief “in excess of” a specified dollar amount will result in a default award of no more than that amount. (Traci & Marx Co. v. Legal Options, Inc. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4^th 155, 160.)

Specifically, the Complaint’s prayer against Defendant Brian & Sons Plumbing seeks “damages and restitution in an amount proven at trial.” (Compl., Prayer ¶ 1.) The body of the Complaint only references the specific amounts of $200,000 and 26,787.90. (Compl., ¶¶ 29, 32.) Thus, damages on this Complaint are limited to, at most, $226,787.90 – assuming these damages can be properly substantiated.

Further, although Plaintiff requests attorney fees, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate any entitlement to attorney fees based on either an agreement or statute. Local Rule 3.214, which Plaintiff cites, does not serve as an independent basis to recover attorney fees.

Lastly, Plaintiff’s interest calculation is based on this excessive judgment amount and, therefore, faulty. (Blum Decl., ¶ 3.)

Accordingly, the request for entry of default judgment is denied.