Department 58

Hearing Date: January 18, 2024

Case Name: Tarzana Investment, LLC v. Hazryan

Case No.: 23STCV14666

Matter: Default Judgment prove-up

Moving Party: Plaintiff Tarzana Investment, LLC

Responding Party: Unopposed

Tentative Ruling: The request for default judgment is denied.

This action arises from a breach of commercial lease. Plaintiff Tarzana Investment, LLC

(Plaintiff) sued Defendant Davit Hazryan (Defendant), asserting a single cause of action for a breach of contract (and a common count). Plaintiff alleged Defendant now owes $45,540.50.

The Complaint was filed on June 23, 2023. On October 24, 2023, default was entered against Defendant Hazryan. Does 1-10 have been dismissed.

Plaintiff now moves for entry of default judgment against Defendant. The request for entry of default judgment is denied.

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks default judgment in the amount of $62,713.60, which includes $6,823.44 in interest, $710.66 in costs, and $1,954.50 in attorney fees.

Plaintiff avers that, on August 7, 2019, it entered into a written Standard Industrial/Commercial Multi-Tenant Lease (Lease) with Defendant for rental of certain real property to operate a jewelry store. (Abrams Decl., ¶ 2; Compl., Ex. A.) Thereafter, in October 2022, Defendant fell behind on the required monthly payments and, as of October 2023, the total amount of $53,225 is now owed on the Lease. (Abrams Decl., ¶ 2.) Plaintiff has submitted sufficient evidence to support the breach of the Lease and the resulting damages.

However, the amount sought for entry of default judgment exceeds the amount requested in the Complaint. Specifically, the Complaint seeks damages in an amount “not less than $45,540.50.” (Compl., Prayer ¶ 1.)

The Legislature has provided that 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 default judgment is also void if the required statement of damages was not served on the defendant before the default was taken. (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1521.)

Accordingly, the Court cannot enter default judgment in the amount requested.

Further, both the pre-judgment interest calculation and the attorney fee calculation are based on this improper damage amount.

Additionally, Plaintiff improperly calculated its pre-judgment interest. Plaintiff seeks interest on the amount of $53,225, accruing at 10% from the date of October 1, 2022 (date of the breach) to January 11, 2024. (Federici Decl., ¶ 13.) However, the full amount of $53,225 was not owed on October 1, 2022, but only became due after failing to also pay the rents owed on the subsequent months. (Memo P&A p. 2:7-18, 3:20-4:7.) Thus, this interest calculation is incorrect.

Lastly, Plaintiff substantiates the request for reasonable costs in the amount of $710.66, which includes $435 in clerk’s filing fees, $209.85 in service of process fees, and $65.81 in electronic filing fees. (Federici Decl., ¶ 3.)

The request for entry of default judgment is denied.