PROCEEDINGS: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT 

MOVING PARTY: Hakimfar Law, APLC 

RESPONDING PARTY: Radha Dasa 

 

BACKGROUND 

This case arises from an attorney-client dispute.  Defendant Radha Dasa hired Plaintiff Hakifar Law, APLC to represent her in a suit against her landlords.  Dasa’s landlords, Defendants Eric and Bita Zahedi-Watson, had placed their primary residence for sale which included the dwelling unit where Dasa lived, located at 19571 Webb Trail, Topanga, California (the “Premises”).  The Premises is a guesthouse.  Landlords allegedly attempted to illegally terminate Dasa’s tenancy in order to sell their home without a tenant.   

 Plaintiff convinced the Landlords to enter into a cash for keys agreement whereby consideration will be provided in exchange for early termination of Dasa’s tenancy.  Dasa and Plaintiff’s attorney-client contract provided that all proceeds of Dasa’s claim against Landlords shall be deposited into Plaintiff’s trust account for disbursement.  However, Dasa negotiated a cash-for-keys agreement for $25,000 directly with Landlords, and Landlords wired the money directly into Dasa’s bank account.  Dasa failed to pay Plaintiff the agreed upon portion of compensation due under the parties’ attorney-client contract.          

On June 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Dasa and the Landlords alleging (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) common count: goods and services rendered, (4) fraud – intentional misrepresentation, (5) intentional interference with existing agreement, (6) defamation per se, (7) negligence per se – violation of Business & Professions Code § 6125, and (8) abuse of process.  The Complaint sought damages of no less than $100,000.  Plaintiff subsequently dismissed its claims against the Landlords.      

Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing Dasa was served by substitute service on February 10, 2023.  Dasa was obligated to respond within 30 days. Dasa did not do so. Plaintiff successfully requested the entry of Dasa’s default, which was entered by the Clerk’s Office on June 23, 2023.  Plaintiff requested a default judgment on June 28, 2023. Plaintiff served Dasa by mail with both the Request for Entry of Default and Request for Default Judgment.  Dasa has not appeared. 

 

 

 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 

Default judgment against Defendant for a total of $52,297.19, which is comprised of: (1) $12,500, for damages, (2) $1,250, for interest, (3) $1047.19, for costs, and (4) $37,500 for punitive/exemplary damages.  

 

ANALYSIS 

 

Code of Civil Procedure §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 not complied with all the requirements for a default judgment.  Plaintiff has not filed a statement of damages specifying the amount of punitive damages it is seeking before entry of default. (Heidary v. Yadollahi (2002) 99 Cal. App. 4th 857, 867 (no punitive damages could be awarded where plaintiff failed to serve statement of damages prior to entry of default).)  Plaintiff has also not presented clear and convincing evidence of malice, oppression or fraud.  (Civ. Code §3294.)  Plaintiff has also not shown that punitive damages is not excessive in light of defendant’s ability to pay or that punitive damages would have some measure of deterrence.  (See¿Cummings Medical Corp v. Occupational Medical Corp. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1291, 1298¿(some measure of the effect of a¿punitive damages award in terms of¿deterrence is required before punitive damages may be awarded in a¿default judgment); Lambertson v. Gonzalez, 2022 Cal. Super. LEXIS 14384 at *2 (denying default judgment where plaintiff provided no evidence that the punitive damages award is not excessive in light of defendant's¿ability to pay).) 

 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER  

 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Hakimfar Law APLC’s Request for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.