Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 22STCV40408, Date: 2023-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV40408    Hearing Date: December 14, 2023    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

The Court denies Plaintiffs’ default judgment packet. 

The Court sets a hearing on an order to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed and/or Plaintiffs’ counsel sanctioned $250 for failing to enter default judgment (California Rule of Court, rule 3.110(h)) on January 16, 2024, at 8:30 AM in Department 71 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse for the following reasons:

1.     No proof of service of the required statement of damages or notice of punitive damages.  (C.C.P. §425.11(c) and 425.115.)  An award of punitive damages requires evidence as to the defendant’s wealth.  (Devlin v. Kearny Mesa AMC (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 381, 390; Adams v. Murakami (1991) 54 Cal.3d 105, 118.)

2.     No summary of the case.

3.     Neither the individual causes of action nor the prayer for damages specify the damages claimed.  Only the general allegations contain dollar amounts that are not specified as damages.

4.     The court judgment seeks an amount that is greater than any of the dollar amounts stated in the complaint.  (See, e.g., Falahati v. Kondo (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 823, 830-831 [stating court acts in excess of its jurisdiction and the resulting default judgment is void if the court awards default judgment in an amount greater than that demanded in the complaint, including if the complaint does not specify the amount demanded].)

5.     Plaintiff’s declaration does not provide adequate, authenticated foundations of exhibits attached to the Complaint.

6.     Plaintiff has not demonstrated liability as to each Defendant for each cause of action, particularly because Exhibit A is not signed by Defendants Marciano and Rachel, and Exhibit B is not signed by Rachel.

7.     No interest calculation provided. However, values for calculations have been provided for a total of $852,896.85.

Based on the values provided, the Court calculates the following interest calculations:

Garg: .1 x $1,110,956 = $111,095.6

$111,095.6/365= $304.37/day

1548 days x $304.37/day = $471,167.09 in prejudgment interest to Garg

Bajaja: .1 x $898,774.55 = $89,877.46

$89,877.46/365 = $246.24/day

1548 days x $246.24/day = $381.178.91 in prejudgment interest to Bajaja

$471,167.09 + $381.178.91 = $852,346 total in prejudgment interest to both Garg and Bajaja

The Court notes the amounts owed to each Plaintiff should be separated out in the proposed judgment.