Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 24STCV31435, Date: 2025-05-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV31435    Hearing Date: May 28, 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 June 6, 2025, at 8:30 AM in Department 71 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse for the following reasons:

1.     No CIV-100 Request for Court Judgment submitted.

2.     Two separate JUD-100s submitted violate the one final judgment rule.  (See Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1507 [“The one final judgment rule provides that an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment, and a judgment that disposes of fewer than all of the causes of action of the pleadings is not yet final for purposes of appeal.”].)

3.     No summary of the case submitted.

4.     No DOEs Dismissal submitted.

5.     The request for court judgment does not properly seek an amount that is equal to or less than the amount sought 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].)

6.     JUD-100 does not indicate the annual rate at which prejudgment interest is sought.

7.     Default judgment is based on contract claim and attorney’s fees are not properly calculated per Local Rule 3.2 schedule.