Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 23PSCV01102, Date: 2024-06-06 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: 23PSCV01102    Hearing Date: June 6, 2024    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT is DENIED without prejudice as

Plaintiff has submitted no evidence to support damages.

Background

This is a contracts case. Plaintiff Olidio Lopez alleges the following against Defendants Leonardo Parra,[1] Blueprints and Build Construction, Inc. (“Blueprints”), and LP Design Construction[2]: In September 2021, Plaintiff entered into a written contract with Blueprints wherein Blueprints was to, amongst other things, create geological reports, do structural design and pavement designs, and submit said designs to the city. The total contract price was $51,250 due in stages wherein Plaintiff paid $27,250 of that. However, Blueprints did not do the promised work. 

On April 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed suit alleging the following causes of action (COAs):

1.     Accounting

2.     Conversion

3.     Breach of Contract

4.     Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage

5.     Fraud

6.     Deceit

7.     Negligent Misrepresentation

8.     Violation of Fiduciary Duty

9.     Declaratory Relief

10.  Violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200.

On June 21, 2023, the court clerk rejected all three requests for entry of default, because “*Other - Proof of Service of Summons filed 6/14/23 is faulty. Name of defendant on proof does not match. Item #6 of proof is incomplete. Name of defendant on request for default must match exactly as they appear on summons and complaint. Please amend proof and submit new request for default.”

On August 18, 2023, the court clerk again rejected Plaintiff’s second request for entry of default, due to the failure to file and serve a statement of damages.

On November 20, 2023, the CIV-100 form indicates that default was entered, but then the court clerk filed a rejection of the entry of default as to the 11/20/23 filing because the form “must list the name and address of each defendant separately.”

On December 4, 2023, default was entered against all three Defendants.

On March 5, 2024, the court held a hearing re: Order to Show Cause Re: Default/Default Judgment and set an Order to Show Cause Re: Why the Court Should not Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution is scheduled for 06/06/2024.

On May 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a JUD-100 form.

Discussion

Plaintiff has not complied with any requirements in seeking default judgment.

Though Plaintiff is pro per, a pro per litigants is held to the same standards as attorneys. (Kobayashi v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536.) To provide otherwise would be to give pro per litigants “an unfair advantage.” (Ibid.) Thus, as Plaintiff is seeking entry of default judgment, she must meet the evidentiary burden for such a relief as prescribed by statute and case law.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the application for entry of default judgment is denied without prejudice. Should Plaintiff refile her request for entry of default judgment, the material must be submitted at least 16 court days before the hearing.