Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 23STCV25905, Date: 2024-03-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV25905    Hearing Date: March 4, 2024    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

DEPARTMENT 71

 

TENTATIVE RULING

 

XPLS LEGAL, P.L.C., 

 

         vs.

 

JARVIS LEWIS JR., et al.

 Case No.:  23STCV25905

 

 

 

 Hearing Date:  March 4, 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 April 4, 2025, 2024, at 8:30 AM in Department 71 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse for the following reasons:

1.     The service address for personal service listed on the proof of personal service does not match the mailing address for the listed individual on an online public records search. The address listed is not a valid address for mailing.  Additionally, the address listed on the Services Agreement attached to the Complaint is different from the address on the proof of service. (31 Beatrice Ln, Apt. 3, San Francisco)

 

2.     The service address for entry of default is different than the address written on the Proof of Service; therefore, the entry of default was not mailed to the same address where service was originally made.

 

3.     The service address for the entry of default as to the personal administrator only lists the individual and the individual’s address; it does not include the personal administrator or his address.

 

4.     Plaintiff has not personally served the required statement of damages or notice of punitive damages.  (C.C.P. §§425.11(c), 425.115)

 

5.     No DOES dismissal.

 

6.     No declarations with exhibits establishing foundation.  (The trial brief notes in the caption that it was filed concurrently with a list of exhibits and a dismissal of DOE defendants, but no such documents were filed with this Court per the docket.)

 

7.     Complaint seeks punitive damages but does not provide evidence of the defendant’s wealth. 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.)