Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 23STCV08375, Date: 2023-10-05 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. 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.
If you
submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or
thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the
court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 23STCV08375 Hearing Date: February 5, 2024 Dept: 71
County
of Los Angeles
DEPARTMENT 71
TENTATIVE
RULING
|
VICTOR CEBAN,
vs. WINK LABS, INC., et al. |
Case
No.: 23STCV08375 Hearing Date: February 5, 2024 |
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 March 5, 2024, at 8:30 AM in Department 71 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse for
the following reasons:
1.
Judgment does not seek an amount that is equal to or less than the amount
stated in the Prayer for Relief in the first amended complaint. The proposed judgment requests $300 more than
the total amount of damages stated in Plaintiff’s prayer. (See, e.g., Falahati v. Kondo (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 823, 830-831 [finding
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].)