Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 23PSCV03001, Date: 2024-06-04 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: 23PSCV03001    Hearing Date: June 4, 2024    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs’ Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice because (1) Lease ended February 27, 2023, yet Plaintiff seeks damages for March 2023 and (2) insufficient evidence to support damages. Upon submission of a renewed request for entry of default judgment, Plaintiff need only submit an amended supplemental declaration that addresses the court’s concerns.

Background

This case arises from a breach of a lease agreement.

On September 28, 2023, Plaintiff Art Weiss, Inc. filed suit against Defendants Movepro, LLC, a California limited liability company, Sukhbatullo Nurov, Denis Andriutsa, Rakhimzhan Yussupov for: (1) Common Counts (2) Breach Of Contract (3) Breach Of Written Guaranty (4) Breach Of Written Guaranty (5) Breach Of Written Guaranty.

On January 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed a POS indicating that all Defendants were served on 1/24/2024 via publication.

On March 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed a ‘Notice of Disassociation of Attorney’ indicating that  Attorney, Dominic V. Marino, of the Law Office of Dominic V. Marino, is no longer associated as counsel for Plaintiff, Art Weiss, Inc.

On May 16, 2024, default was entered against all Defendants. That same day, Plaintiff filed the instant request for entry of default judgment.

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks entry of default judgment in the total amount of 63,646.10 against all Defendants, which includes $53,368.27 in damages and $5,891.86 of interest at the annual rate of 10%. The court finds the following two defects with the application.

1.     Defendants Do Not Appear to be Liable When They Vacated by the End of the Lease

According to the complaint, the Lease entered was entered in on 2/21/2022. (Complaint ¶

11.) “On or around March 24, 2023, Plaintiff discovered that Defendants vacated the Premises during the month of March 2023, without paying rent for March 1, 2023, and without giving Plaintiff written notice of their vacancy. The only form of notice that was received by Plaintiff was a voice message from an employee of Defendant Movepro, on March 24, 2023, stating that Movepro moved out of the Premises. Plaintiff treated the March 24, 2023, voice message, as Movepro’s notice of termination of the Lease.” (‘Declaration Of Plaintiff In Support Of Application For Entry Of Default And Judgment Pursuant To C.C.P. § 585 (D)’ (“Plaintiff’s Declaration”), ¶22, p. 5, emphasis added.)

However, it is uncertain whether Defendants are liable for rent after March 2023 when the lease term ended on February 28, 2023. (‘Declaration Of Michelle Patterson Regarding 1) Summary Of Case; 2) Memorandum Of Costs; 3) Pre-Judgment Interest; And 4) Attorney’s Fees; In Support Of Default Judgment Pursuant To C.C.P. §585 And Cal. Rule Of Court 3.1800(A)’ (“Counsel’s Declaration”) ¶4, p. 2.) Plaintiff’s declaration is unclear as to whether Defendants vacated prior to March 1, 2023 or if they vacated on March 24, 2023; it is only clear that Plaintiff learned of the vacancy on March 24, 2023.

To the extent that the lease was somehow modified by the Clerk’s entry of Default Judgment—Unlawful Detainer on January 26, 2023 (due to Defendants not holding a business license), Plaintiff provides no explanation.

2.      Insufficient Evidence

Even assuming Defendants are liable for March 2023, base rent is $17,820.00 per month, Plaintiff seeks $51,913.10 for ‘Costs to restore the Premises to marketable condition.’ (Plaintiff’s Declaration, ¶27, p. 6.) Plaintiff, however, has not proved up said cost (i.e., explained the specific costs and provided respective evidence (e.g., receipts). It is up to plaintiff to “prove up” the right to relief, by introducing sufficient evidence to support his or her claim. Without such evidence, the court may refuse to grant a default judgment for any amount, notwithstanding defendant's default. (Taliaferro v. Hoogs (1963) 219 CA2d 559, 560, 33 CR 415, 416; Holloway v. Quetel (2015) 242 CA4th 1425, 1434-1435, 195 CR3d 920, 927-928.)

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing two defects, the application is denied without prejudice.