PROCEEDINGS: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT 

MOVING PARTY: Steven Ayromlooi as successor in interest and interested party to the estate of Decedent Jahangir Ayromlooi  

RESPONDING PARTY: Mikhail Siretskiy 

BACKGROUND 

This is a breach of contract and fraud case.  Decedent Jahangir Ayromlooi purchased the property located at 18 Sunset Avenue, Venice California 90291 (the “Property”), as an investment.  The Property is a multi-unit residential building.  Decedent hired Cross-Defendant Mikhail Siretskiy to renovate the Property.  At the time of the renovation, Decedent was over 80 years old and undergoing treatment for cancer which ultimately took his life.   

Cross-Plaintiff Steven Ayromlooi is the successor in interest to the estate of Decedent.  Cross-Plaintiff alleges Cross-Defendant billed for work that was never performed or performed so poorly the work had to be completely repaired or redone, resulting in $155,000 in damages (“Fraudulent Payments”).  Cross-Plaintiff further alleges Cross-Defendant caused physical damage to the Property, requiring Decedent and Cross-Plaintiff to hire new contractors to perform remedial contracting services, resulting in damages of $102,456.30 (the “Remedial Payments”).   

Moreover, Cross-Defendant converted for his own use and possession for years, Decedent’s rare, exotic car, a 1963 Dodge Viper.  The Dodge Viper was eventually recovered and returned to Cross-Plaintiff by the police.  The damages suffered by Decedent related to the theft of the Doge Viper amount to $99,651.52, which is trebled pursuant to Penal Code section 496(c) for a total of $298,954.56 (the “Dodge Viper Damages”). 

On August 10, 2020, Cross-Plaintiff filed a cross-complaint, which was amended on July 28, 2022.  The first amended Cross-Complaint alleges eight claims for (1) breach of contract, (2) negligence, (3) conversion, (4) fraud, (5) violation of Bus. & Prof. Code section 7031, (6) declaratory relief, (7) breach of fiduciary duty, and (8) negligent supervision.  The Cross-Complaint seeks general and special damages of at least $206,100 and return of sums paid to Cross-Defendant in the amount of $143,000.   

Cross-Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing Cross-Defendant was substitute served on November 21, 2023.  Defendant was obligated to respond.  He did not do so within the time allowed by law.  Cross-Plaintiff successfully requested the entry of Cross-Defendant’s default, which was entered by the Clerk’s Office on January 22, 2024.  Cross-Plaintiff requested a default judgment on September 16, 2024.  Cross-Plaintiff served Cross-Defendant by mail with both the Request for Entry of Default and Request for Default Judgment. 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

Default judgment against Cross-Defendant for a total of $609,725.86, which is comprised of: (1) $556,401.86, for damages, (2) $53,315 for attorneys’ fees, and (2) $430, for costs.  

ANALYSIS 

Code Civ. Proc. § 585 sets forth the two options for obtaining a default judgment. First, where the plaintiff’s complaint¿seeks compensatory damages only, in a sum certain which is readily ascertainable from the allegations of the complaint or statement of damages, the clerk may enter the default judgment for that amount. However, if the relief requested in the complaint is more complicated, consisting of either nonmonetary relief, or monetary relief in amounts which require either an accounting, additional evidence, or the exercise of judgment to ascertain, the plaintiff must request entry of judgment by the court. In such cases, the plaintiff must affirmatively establish his entitlement to the specific judgment requested.¿ (Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 287.)  Section 585 also allows for interest, costs and attorney fees, where otherwise allowed by law. (Code Civ. Proc. § 585(a).) 

Multiple specific documents are required, such as: (1) form CIV 100, (2) a brief summary of the case; (3) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (4) interest computations as necessary; (5) a memorandum of costs and disbursements; (6) a proposed form of judgment; (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under Code Civ. Proc. § 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (8) exhibits as necessary; and (9) a request for attorneys’ fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties.  (CRC Rule 3.1800.)  

Here, Cross-Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of that sought in the Complaint.  The Complaint seeks damages of $349,100, while the request seeks damages of $556,401.86.  Cross-Plaintiff also seeks treble damages which is not mentioned in the Cross-Complaint.  Section 580, subdivision (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure¿provides that “[t]he relief granted to the plaintiff, if there is no answer,¿cannot¿exceed that demanded in the¿complaint¿… .”¿Thus, “in all¿default¿judgments the demand sets a ceiling on recovery,” and a judgment purporting to grant relief beyond that ceiling is void for being in¿excess¿of jurisdiction.¿(Greenup v. Rodman¿(1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.)   

CONCLUSION AND ORDER  

For the foregoing reasons, Cross-Plaintiff Steven Ayromlooi’s Request for Default Judgment is DENIED as to Defendant Michael Siretskiy.  An Order to Show Cause re Sanctions for no Default Judgement is set for January 9, 2025 at 9:00 a.m.