Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 23STCV25905, Date: 2024-03-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV25905 Hearing Date: March 4, 2024 Dept: 71
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mailed to the same address where service was originally made.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.)