Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr., Case: 21SMCV01808, Date: 2023-09-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21SMCV01808    Hearing Date: November 17, 2023    Dept: 205

PROCEEDINGS:                          REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY:               Houck Construction, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY:      Jennifer Berglas

BACKGROUND

This case arises from a mechanic’s lien.  Plaintiff Houck Construction Inc. is a licensed general contractor.  Plaintiff entered into a written agreement with Defendant Jennifer Berglas to remodel and renovate a home located at 1460 Floresta Place, Pacific Palisades, California (the “Property”).  Plaintiff furnished labor, services, equipment and materials to improve the Property.  Defendant breached the agreement by failing to pay $37,809.55 to Plaintiff. 

The contract provides that “payments due and unpaid under the Contract bear an interest from the date payment is due at the rate of 18% per year.”  The contract also contains an attorneys’ fees provision which provides for an award of attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party.   

On August 30, 2021, Plaintiff duly recorded a verified Mechanics’ Lien Claim, as Document No. 20211327788 in the official records of Los Angeles County, in accordance with Civ. Code section 8416. 

On November 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant.  The Complaint alleges claims for foreclosure of mechanic’s lien and breach of contract.  The Complaint seeks $37,809.55 plus interest and attorneys’ fees and costs.   

Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing Defendant was served by substitute service on November 26, 2021.  Defendant had 30 days to respond.  Defendant did not respond.  Plaintiff successfully requested the entry of Defendant’s default, which was entered by the Clerk’s Office on May 16, 2022. 

Plaintiff requested a default judgment.  On September 25, 2023, a status conference came on for hearing on Plaintiff’s request for default judgment.  The Court’s tentative ruling indicated that Plaintiff was entitled to entry of default judgment.  However, the Court continued the status conference to November 17, 2023 to clarify the specific form of the judgment to be entered because two different forms of judgment had been submitted to the Court.  In one proposed judgment, Plaintiff sought damages and to foreclose a mechanic’s lien.  The other proposed judgment omitted the reference to the mechanic’s lien.  The Court requested that Plaintiff file a proposed judgment on form JUD-100.  Plaintiff has now filed a proposed judgment using form JUD-100. 

RELIEF REQUESTED

Default judgment against Defendant for a total of $55,369.72, which is comprised of: (1) $37,809.55, for damages, (2) $12,171.92 for interest, (3) $4,088.25 for attorneys’ fees and (4) $1,300, 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 of 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 CCP § 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, Plaintiff has properly complied with all the substantive and procedural requirements for a default judgment. Substantively, Plaintiff declares via declaration that there have been damages in the amount of $37,809.55.  (Houck Decl. ¶9; Ex. 2 to Houck Decl.) Plaintiff has provided a calculation of the prejudgment interest of $12,171.92.  (Lorman Decl. ¶¶ 8-9.)  A memorandum of costs in the amount of $1,300 is set forth in Item 10 of the CIV-100 form.  The contract provides for attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party, and Plaintiff has submitted a declaration supporting the amount of attorneys’ fees sought of $4,088.25.  (Lorman Decl. ¶¶ 11-19.)  The evidence submitted (the contract and the invoices) is authenticated by further declaration.  Procedurally, Plaintiff properly served Defendant more than 30 days prior to requesting entry of default and default judgment, correctly completed JC Form CIV-100 in a manner that would not void or put at issue the entry of default, provided a declaration of non-military status, requested damages in amounts supported by the filings and not in excess of the amount stated in the Complaint, and filed a proposed judgment (JUD-100).  As default has already been entered and there has been no appearance or filing whatsoever from Defendant, default judgment is appropriate here.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Houck Construction Inc.’s Request for Default Judgment is GRANTED as to Defendant Jennifer Berglas.  Judgment in the amount of $55,369.72 is awarded in favor of Plaintiff.