Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 23PSCV00320, Date: 2023-06-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV00320    Hearing Date: June 22, 2023    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF COURT JUDGMENT is DENIED. Should Plaintiff seek interest, the application is denied with prejudice. Should Plaintiff file a new application without interest, the application is denied without prejudice.

Background

This is an unlawful detainer (UD) case.

On February 2, 2023, Plaintiff VINCENT HUANG ASSOCIATES, LLC, dba VINCENT HUANG & ASSOCIATES, INC filed the instant action against Defendant LAWYERS REALTY BROKERAGE.

On February 24, 2023, default was entered against Defendant.

On May 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant application for entry of default judgment.

Discussion

The application is denied without prejudice mainly because it is unclear as to the damages sought.  

The complaint seeks damages of $31,157.59 in past-due rent, reasonable attorney fees, forfeiture of the agreement, and damages at the rate stated in item 13 (the fair rental value of the premises is $526.67 from date: February 1, 2023. (See Complaint p. 5 of 47 of PDF, Paragraph 19 ‘Plaintiff Requests.’)[1]

However, the request for entry of default do not match the amount stated in the complaint, or, in the alternative, are unclear. For one, the CIV-100 form filed seeks $35,817.24 in damages of the complaint, but the complaint seeks $31,157.59 in past-due rent. This is problematic because pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) section 580 “[t]he relief granted to the plaintiff, if there is no answer, cannot exceed that which he or she shall have demanded in his or her complaint, in the statement required by Section 425.11, or in the statement provided for by Section 425.115.” “The Legislature enacted section 580 and related statutes to ensure that a defendant who declines to contest an action does not suffer open-ended liability.” (Electric Funds Solutions, LLC v. Murphy (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1173) (emphasis added). To the extent the CIV-100 form number includes hold-over damages, a calculation has not been provided.

Aside from the judgment apparently seeking more than the demand of the complaint, there are two proposed default judgment orders filed that have differing amounts. The proposed judgment on the UD-110 form seeks $32,063.05 in past due rent and $3,865.08 in holdover damages whereas another uploaded default judgment seeks $36,219.36. Thus, it is unclear what are the exact damages demanded on the complaint.

Next, as for the attorney fees, the ‘Declaration Of Chiffon Chang In Lieu Of Personal Testimony’ seeks attorney fees of $3,955.81 whereas the ‘Declaration Of Carl J. Pentis In Support Of Request For Default Judgment’ seeks $2,742.00 in attorney fees. As such, it is unclear how much in attorney fees are sought, even though the CIV-100 form seeks $2,742.00 in attorney.  On a last note about attorney fees, Counsel Pentis’s hourly rate is $450.00, but utilizing a Lodestar approach, the court finds a reasonable hourly rate for such a matter is $250 per hour. Therefore, the court would reduce the attorney fees.

Lastly, as for interest, even if Paragraph 13.5 of the lease authorizes 10% interest, Plaintiff’s complaint does not seek interest. As noted, the California Supreme Court has made clear that “in all default judgments the demand sets a ceiling on recovery.” (Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.) Examples of a judgment failing because it awards relief in excess of that demanded in the complaint occur when interest is not prayed for in the complaint. (See Flores v. Smith (1941) 47 Cal.App.2d 253, 260 [“A default judgment, whether entered with or without the action of the court, cannot properly be for an amount not shown by the complaint to be due. Interest may be allowed only to the extent to which it is claimed in the complaint.”]. Therefore, should Plaintiff seek interest, the application would be denied with prejudice as Plaintiff is to file and serve an amended complaint.

All in all, there are numerous uncertainties as to the damages sought. Should Plaintiff seek to refile its application for entry of default judgment, Plaintiff is to file a CIV-100 form and UD-110 form with matching numbers and a supplemental declaration from a custodian of records explaining the damages sought with the proper calculations.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the application is denied.