Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 22STCV28978, Date: 2024-07-01 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 22STCV28978    Hearing Date: July 1, 2024    Dept: 14

TENTATIVE RULING

 

The Default Judgment Application is DENIED. Counsel for Plaintiff to give notice. 

 

STATEMENT OF CASE

 

This is a breach of contract case in which Landlord and Plaintiff Farokh Moghadam (“Moghadam”) is suing Tenant and Defendant Christina Camacho (“Camacho”) for violation of a commercial lease.  Plaintiff Moghadam alleges to have suffered monetary damages for having to evict Defendant Camacho and pay for unlawful detainer proceedings, court costs, sheriff fees, and document preparation fees.

 

The Court entered default against Defendant on January 10, 2023, and there were no Doe Defendants to dismiss. (1.10.23 Not. of Rejection of Clerk’s Judgment).

 

SUMMARY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT REQUEST

 

 

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

 

  1. Use of JC Form CIV-100                                                                                            YES
  2. Dismissal or judgment of non-parties to the judgment                                              N/A
  3. Declaration of non-military status for each defendant                                               YES
  4. Summary of the case                                                                                                  YES
  5. 585(d) declarations/admissible evidence in support                                                  YES
  6. Exhibits (as necessary)                                                                                               YES
  7. Interest computation (as necessary)                                                                           N/A
  8. Cost memorandum                                                                                                     YES
  9. Request for attorney fees (Local Rule 3.214)                                                            N/A
  10. Proposed judgment                                                                                                     NO

 

DISCUSSION

 

This case is brought by Defendant-Tenant’s former Landlord who is Plaintiff in the instant case. On January 10, 2022, the Court provided that the Clerk’s judgment could not be entered on the Complaint because the relevant Complaint concerns a Commercial Lease Agreement. Plaintiff was instructed to submit for Court judgment. Thus, on January 10, 2023, Default was entered.

 

On November 22, 2023, this Court issued a Minute Order reminding Plaintiff that pursuant to Court Order dated October 13, 2023, Plaintiff was instructed to follow California Rules of Court 3.1800 and submit a Request for Default Judgment. As of the date of November 22, 2023, the Court stated it had yet to receive the Request for Default Judgment and scheduled the corresponding hearing for February 2, 2024.

 

On December 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed new documents in his Request for Default Judgment.

 

On February 2, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Request for Default for failure to comply with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1800. Thus, the hearing was continued to April 30, 2024.

 

On April 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed a new CIV-100, JUD-100, and Memorandum of Costs (MC-010).

 

On April 18, 2024, Plaintiff submitted a CIV-130 which the Court rejected.

 

On April 30, 2024, the Court continued the OSC for Default Judgment to July 1, 2024, along with the OSC Re: Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute Case.

 

On June 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Declaration for Default Judgment by Court (UD-116), along with attached exhibits of the “3-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit,” Plaintiff’s written receipt of lawsuit, along with a copy of the commercial lease that Plaintiff alleges Defendant Camacho violated. There were also notices of “Rent Increase Reminder” attached for the dates of January 20, 2019, and January 25, 2020.

 

 

 

Damages 

 

Plaintiff seeks $31,821.86 in damages which represents Defendant Camacho’s past due rent of $4,132.71 per month in excess of seven months. (Compl., pg. 17; 6.24.24 UD-116, pg. 3.) Plaintiff also advances exhibits of (1) the copy of the 3-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit; (2) the rent ledger; (3) and the Commercial Lease Agreement that was violated.  (6.24.24 UD-116.)

 

However, there does not appear to be an attached Declaration or Proposed Judgment in the most recent papers filed for Default.

 

 

Costs

 

            Plaintiff also requests $1,285 in costs according to Plaintiff’s UD-116 submitted on June 24, 2024. However, Plaintiff’s most recent Memorandum of Costs was submitted on April 15, 2024, and only designates $750 in costs without specifying a breakdown. The costs are listed next to item 16 as “other” and thus, are unspecified. Given this inconsistency between the April 15 Memorandum and the June 24 UD-116, the Court cannot grant costs.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Accordingly, the Court must DENY Plaintiff’s Request for Default for failure to comply with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1800.