Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 24STCV18510, Date: 2025-04-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV18510    Hearing Date: April 14, 2025    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

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 May 19, 2025, at 8:30 AM in Department 71 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse for the following reasons:

1.     Plaintiff’s declaration does not demonstrate the existence of a contract with Defendant sufficient to support recovery of damages under the 1st cause of action for breach of contract. “To prevail on a cause of action for breach of contract, the plaintiff must prove (1) the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance of the contract or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) resulting damage to the plaintiff.”  (Richman v. Hartley (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1182, 1186.)  Plaintiff merely produces invoices and not the contract at issue.  Further, the Declaration of Eric Jun states, “The obligation sued upon herein is based on an open book account and there is no contract providing for attorney fees and costs as provided in C.C. Section 1717.”  (Decl. of Jun ¶7.)