Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 24PSCV03652, Date: 2025-04-08 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: 24PSCV03652    Hearing Date: April 8, 2025    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s Application for Entry of Default Judgment is DENIED; the application fails for the lack of an explanation/computation as to the months in which Defendant failed to pay rent and/or that the judgment sought is not supported by the evidence (i.e., the lease).

Background

This is an unlawful detainer case.

On October 28, 2024, Plaintiff Rio Rancho Investment Group, LLC filed suit against Defendant Monica Flores dba “Music Tree.”

On February 19, 2025, default was entered against Defendant.

On February 26, 2025, the instant application was filed.

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks entry of default judgment in the amount of $58,614.53 against Defendant, which comprises of $58,055.63 in holdover damages. However, for one, the application does not comply with CCP section 585 (default judgment requirements). Of import, the application does not set forth a calculation (supported by evidence) of the damages.

According to the complaint, the parties entered into their agreement for a five-year lease with renewal on December 2, 2019. The monthly rent was $4,862.20. About five years later, on October 24, 2024, Defendant was served with a 3-day notice to pay rent or quit. With that, it is unclear whether Defendant failed to pay during the entirety of those five years.

What is more, the lease agreement, which is attached to the complaint, states that the rent increases to $4,862.20 in the fifth year of the lease; the first year of the lease carries a monthly rental rate of $4,320.00, followed by $4,449.60 for the second year, and $4,720.58 for the third year and fourth years. (Complaint, Ex. 1, pp.7-8 of 74 of PDF.) Thus, it appears that Plaintiff’s 3-day notice to pay or quit provides the incorrect total sum of rent due.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the application is denied. Whether the application is denied with or prejudice depends on whether the amount of rent sought comports with the lease agreement.