Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 23PSCV00064, Date: 2024-02-29 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

Case Number: 23PSCV00064    Hearing Date: February 29, 2024    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff ROBERT LOZA’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice because (1) Doe Defendants haven’t been dismissed and (2) Insufficient/Conflicting Evidence Regarding the Loan(s) and Rental Agreement.   

Background

This case pertains to unpaid loan(s) and breach of a rental agreement. Plaintiff ROBERT LOZA alleges the following against Defendants ANDREA COLORADO, aka ANDREA LOZA and DANIEL LOZA[1]:As for the loans, Defendants owe Plaintiff $56,710. As for the rental agreement, that was entered into in July 2015 and in 2019, Defendants stopped paying rent; the sum now due to Plaintiff from the Defendants is $90,400.00.

On January 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants alleging the following three (3) causes of action (COAs):

On January 15, 2023, Defendants were served. (See January 17, 2023 Proofs of Service.)[2]

On May 25, 2023, default was entered as to both Defendants.

On February 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant application for entry of default judgment.

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks entry of default judgment in the total amount of $149,499.00, which is comprised of $146,180.00 in damages, $2,680.00 in attorney fees, and $639.00 in costs.

The application is denied for the following defects.

1.     Dismissal of Doe Defendants

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 585, a plaintiff seek default judgment must dismiss all parties against whom judgment is not sought.

Here, Doe Defendants have not been dismissed.

Therefore, that is one defect warranting denial.[3]

2.     Evidence Re: Loans

According to Plaintiff’s declaration, he has made “numerous loans” to Defendants. (Loza Decl., ¶3.) “While the loans are not specifically detailed in any writing, they are on a loan by loan basis. The Defendants and I have written ledgers that are evidence of the debts owed, with sufficient detail that describes the amount of the loans, the reason, the approximate dates, and includes the accruing debt owed.” (¶3.)

Here, however, the submitted evidence (Exhibits 2 and 3) do not match the $56,710 sum.[4] For one, the filings are duplicates. For example, p. 11 of 25 of the PDF, loan dated to 6/24/2013, is identical to p. 15 of 25 of PDF. If anything, the loan appears to be for a grand total of $17,500.00. (See e.g., p. 15 of 25 [“Grand Total $17,500.00.”].) Additionally, the loan amount appears to include interest, but it is unclear whether the parties agreed to the interest as Plaintiff’s declaration doesn’t speak to it. (See e.g., p. 15 of 25 of PDF [“Total $15,000.00 Plus Interest $2,500.00.”].)

Additionally, there is inadequate evidence. While some of the loan payments were in cash (e.g., p. 16 of 25 of PDF [“Cash 3/16/20 $350.00; 3/15/20 $300”], other payments were transferred from a bank. (Ibid, [e.g., “Transfer from Bank” dated 1/30/20 for $200 or 1/28/2020 for $3,500.”].) Therefore, as a default judgment requires evidence, then bank statements are to be provided to corroborate said transfers.

Therefore, due to the inconsistent and insufficient/inadequate evidence, this is another reason the default judgment application is denied.

3.     Rental Agreement

According to the complaint, the rent was $2,250.00 per month for the relevant time period. (See Complaint ¶3.)

Here, however, the rental agreement states that the agreed upon rent was $2,000 per month. (Loza Decl., Ex. A [Month-to-Month Rental Agreement], p. 6 of 25 of PDF.)

Therefore, absent clarification as to the arbitrary change in the monthly rental amount, this is another defect that warrants denial of the default judgment application.

All in all, while Defendants failure to answer constitutes as an admission of liability, there must still be evidence offered to support the allegations, evidence of which this court finds insufficient and inadequate for entry of default judgment. (See Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 272-286.)  

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the application for default judgment is denied. Should Plaintiff seek to refile its application, the court requests all material be submitted within 16 court days of the hearing date. Additionally, if possible, the court requests a reorganization of the evidence such that one exhibit addresses only the loans and another exhibit only addresses the rental agreement.