PROCEEDINGS: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT 

MOVING PARTY: Shant Holdings 

RESPONDING PARTY: Matthew Dwyer 

BACKGROUND 

This case arises a landlord tenant dispute.  Plaintiff Shant Holdings owns a property located at 25423 Malibu Road, Malibu, California (the “Property”).  Defendant Matthew Dwyer entered into a written agreement to lease the Property.  Defendant defaulted on the lease.   

On May 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant alleging a single claim for breach of the lease.  The Complaint sought $180,000 in damages, plus interest and attorneys’ fees and costs.   

Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing Defendant was personally served with the Complaint on May 22, 2022.  Defendant was obligated to respond within 30 days.  Defendant did not do so. Plaintiff successfully requested the entry of Defendant’s default, which was entered by the Clerk’s Office on July 26, 2022.  Plaintiff then requested a default judgment on August 30, 2022.  Plaintiff served Defendant by mail with both the Request for Entry of Default and Request for Default Judgment.  Defendant has not appeared. 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

Default judgment against Defendant for a total of $231,116.17, which is comprised of: (1) $210,500, for damages, (2) $616.17, for costs, and (3) $20,000 for attorneys’ fees.   

ANALYSIS 

Code of Civil Procedure section 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 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, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements for entry of a default judgment.  Plaintiff is seeking $210,500 in damages which exceeds the amount demanded in the Complaint ($180,000).  Code Civ. Proc. § 580 provides that “the relief granted to the plaintiff, if there is no answer, cannot exceed that demanded in the complaint.”  A default judgment greater than the amount specifically demanded in the complaint is void as beyond the court’s jurisdiction. (Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 826; see also Finney v. Gomez (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 527, 534 [“[T]he courts have reaffirmed the language of section 580 is mandatory. Therefore, in all default judgments the demand sets a ceiling on recovery.”).)   

Further, Plaintiff seeks $20,000 in attorneys’ fees.¿ Local Rule 3.207 provides that “[i]f attorneys’ fees are awarded on default, they shall be determined in accordance with¿Local Rule 3.214.”¿ Pursuant to Local Rule 3.214, Plaintiff is entitled to only $3,995 in attorneys’ fees.¿ While the Court may award fees beyond Local Rule 3.214, Plaintiff would need to have submitted a declaration explaining why a greater amount should be awarded and an itemized statement of the services rendered or to be rendered.¿ (Local Rule 3.214(d).)¿ 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER  

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Shant Holdings’ Request for Default Judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  The Court sets an order to show cause re default judgment on June 9, 2023 at 9:00 a.m.