Department 58

Hearing Date: December 12, 2023

Case Name: Korea Trade Insurance Corp. v. Euphoria Textile, Inc.

Case No.: 23STCV05588

Matter: Default Judgment prove-up

Moving Party: Plaintiff Korea Trade Insurance Corporation

Responding Party: Unopposed

Tentative Ruling: The request for default judgment is denied.

This is a collections action. The Complaint alleges that Defendant Euphoria Textile, Inc. (Euphoria) became indebted to Juno Textile Co., Ltd. in the amount of $30,795.50. (Compl., ¶ 10.) Defendant Euphoria failed to pay the amounts due. (Compl., ¶ 8.) This indebtedness claim was assigned to Plaintiff Korea Trade Insurance Corporation (Plaintiff). (Compl., ¶ 1.)

Plaintiffs filed its Complaint on March 14, 2023. The Request for Entry of Default against Defendant Euphoria was granted on May 26, 2023. Plaintiff dismissed Does 1-10. On August 16, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff’s initial request for entry of default judgment.

On Plaintiff’s second attempt, the request for entry of default judgment is again denied.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff requests entry of default judgment in the amount of $37,781.75, which includes $4,193.25 in interest, $593 in costs, and $1,2000 in attorney fees.

The governing rule is CRC Rule 3.1800 which lays out the requirements for default judgments. In pertinent part, the rule dictates that a party must use form CIV-100 and file the following documents 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.

Here, Plaintiff again submits the same declaration of its Chief Representative, who attached the “statement of Accounts and/or invoices” that Plaintiff sent to Defendant. (Lee Decl., ¶ 2.) The declaration represents that ‘[t]here is now due, owing and unpaid, on open book account, despite due demand for payment, the sum of $30,795.50 . . ..” (Lee Decl., ¶ 3.)

In addition to the damages sought, Plaintiff requests interest accruing from December 22, 2021, the date of the last payment, to May 3, 2023, for a total of $4,193.25 in prejudgment interest. (Brodkin Interest Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff also requests attorney fees in the amount of $1,200, which is consistent with Civil Code section 1717.5. (Brodkin Fees Decl., ¶ 5.)

The evidence submitted to prove-up the amount of damages requested in the Complaint is again inadequate.

A party seeking a default judgment must submit, among other documents, “[d]eclarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a)(2); accord, Holloway v. Quetel (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1425, 1432; see Code Civ. Proc. § 585, subdivision (d) [authorizing trial court to “permit the use of affidavits, in lieu of personal testimony, as to all or any part of the evidence or proof required or permitted to be offered, received, or heard” on a plaintiff's request for default judgment].) “The facts stated in the affidavit or affidavits shall 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) [emphasis added].)

As the Court previously stated, Plaintiff’s form declaration, which remains nearly illegible, fails to set forth the specifics of the parties’ transaction. Further, given the fact that the declaration was submitted by the assignee, it is unclear what personal knowledge Plaintiff has as to the damages incurred in the business transaction between Defendant Euphoria Textile, Inc. and assignor, Juno Textile Co., Ltd.

Although Plaintiff submitted an additional document, titled “Assignment of Claim,” on this attempt for entry of default judgment, the submission only contains the Letter of Assignment, which the Court previously considered as an attachment to the Lee Declaration. That is, Plaintiff has not submitted any new or different evidence on this attempt for entry of default judgment.

The Court denies the request for default judgment. (Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 288 [“ ‘[p]laintiffs in a default judgment proceeding must prove they are entitled to the damages claimed’ ”].)

At the hearing the Court will set a further date for the consideration of a further OSC re entry of default judgment and a date for submission of material in support.