Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV41931, Date: 2025-06-06 Tentative Ruling
All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SMCDEPT71@lacourt.org. Do not click on the email address, either copy and paste it or type it into your email. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.
If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect. If the moving party fails to appear and/or submit to the Court’s tentative ruling, the Court will take the matter off calendar.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.
Case Number: 20STCV41931 Hearing Date: June 6, 2025 Dept: 71
Superior
Court of California
County
of Los Angeles
DEPARTMENT 71
TENTATIVE
RULING
AARON MEZIERE,
vs. MARCUS CLARK. |
Case No.:
20STCV41931 Hearing Date: June 6, 2025 |
The Court denies Plaintiff’s default judgment
packet.
The Court sets a hearing on an order to show
cause why the complaint should not be dismissed and/or Plaintiff’s counsel
sanctioned $250 for failing to enter default judgment (California Rule of
Court, rule 3.110(h)) on July 10, 2025 at 8:30 AM in Department 71 at Stanley
Mosk Courthouse for the following reasons:
1. No
DOE Dismissal for the first amended complaint.
2.
Prayer for punitive damages states an
amount in violation of Civil Code §3295(e).
(Civ. Code §3295(e) [“No claim for exemplary damages shall state an
amount or amounts.”].) (Note: this issue is separate and apart from Plaintiff’s
proper service of the statement of damages and right to seek punitive damages.)
3.
No declaration of Plaintiff submitted in
support of request for damages with exhibits that have a proper foundation.