Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 23PSCV01102, Date: 2025-04-24 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: April 24, 2025    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

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

insufficient evidence. Plaintiff must file new application material at least 16 court days before

the hearing.

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.

On June 6, 2025, the court denied Plaintiff’s application for entry of default judgment as no evidence/application material was submitted.

On February 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant application for entry of default judgment.

Discussion

At the outset, the court notes that despite previously informing the plaintiff that default judgment application material is to be filed at least 16 court days before the hearing, Plaintiff filed an amended application on 4/8/25, which renders it untimely. That said, the court will consider the merits of the application, which is still insufficient to permit entry of default judgment.

Plaintiff seeks “Leonardo Parra, Blueprints and Build, Inc., and L P Design Construction to jointly and severally pay compensatory damages of $13,000 + $4,038.48 + $24,550 in costs for services Leonardo Parra was supposed to perform + $18,000 =for inventory storage = $59,558.38 in compensatory damages, and punitive damages of $50,000 to Ovidio Lopez.” (Proposed Judgment:3-9.)

Here, Plaintiff has not submitted evidence to support recovery of $18,000 for inventory storage (e.g., invoice from a storage facility).

Additionally, as to the $13,000 paid to a consulting engineer in February 2024 for services related to the project, the court seeks more evidence on those payments. While an invoice is provided and it states the subject property’s address, all that the description states is “100%,” making it unclear what this invoice is for. (Supp. Decl., p. 5 of 9 of PDF.)

As for punitive damages, the declaration sets forth no analysis that would permit recovery of punitive damages. Even considering the 2/28/25 documents, an analysis as to the fraud based COAs is provided, but not as to the recovery of punitive damages.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the application is again denied. The failure to file the NEW application material within 16 court days of the hearing will render the hearing being continued.