Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr, Case: 22SMCV02441, Date: 2024-12-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02441    Hearing Date: December 3, 2024    Dept: 205

PROCEEDINGS:      REQUEST FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff David Haupt

RESPONDING PARTY:      N/A

BACKGROUND

This is an action arising from an alleged breach of contract. On November 22, 2022, Plaintiff David Haupt (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Nikolas Konstant (“Konstant”), Plethora Industries, Inc. (“Plethora”), and DOES 1 to 100, alleging causes of action for: (1) Common Counts; (2) Breach of Contract; and (3) Fraud.

On May 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants Konstant, Plethora, Plutonaster Isidella Holdings, LLC (“Plutonaster”), and DOES 1 to 100, alleging causes of action for: (1) Common Counts; (2) Fraud; (3) Breach of Contract; (4) Breach of Contract; (5) Breach of Contract; (6) Breach of Contract; (7) Breach of Contract; (8) Breach of Contract; and (9) Breach of Contract.  

On October 6, 2023, Defendant Plutonaster was served with the Summons and Complaint by personal service.

Defendants Konstant and Plethora were served with the Summons and Complaint on November 28, 2023, by substituted service.

On February 1, 2024, default was entered against Defendants Konstant and Plutonaster.

On February 29, 2024, default was entered against Defendant Plethora.

On May 23, 2024, DOES 1 to 100 were dismissed from this action without prejudice pursuant to a request for dismissal filed by Plaintiff.

On June 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed the following documents in support of default judgment: (1) a JUD-100 Request for Clerk’s Judgment by Default form; (2) Plaintiff’s Default Prove-Up Declaration; and (3) Memorandum of Costs (Summary).

On July 3, 2024, the Court held an OSC Re: Entry of Default/Default Judgment and the Court continued the OSC to October 1, 2024, given that Plaintiff’s default judgment package was incomplete. (07/03/24 Minute Order.)

On August 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Separate Statement of Case Summary in Support of Default Judgment; a Proposed Order Granting Default Judgment in Favor of Plaintiff; and a JUD-100 Request for Clerk’s Judgment by Default form.

On October 1, 2024, after hearing, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment because the proposed default judgment package submitted was incomplete. (10/01/24 Minute Order.) The Court continued the OSC Re: Entry of Default/Default Judgment to December 3, 2024. (10/01/24 Minute Order.) Plaintiff was ordered to resubmit the proposed default judgment package with the necessary documents to be reviewed prior to the hearing date. (10/01/24 Minute Order.)

Plaintiff submitted a default judgment package on October 21, 2024. The Court notes that Plaintiff submitted two identical Request for Clerk’s Judgment forms (CIV-100), in which Plaintiff seeks default judgment in the sum of $28,873,506.00.

On October 29, 2024, the Clerk’s office issued notices of rejection concerning the CIV-100 forms submitted on October 21, 2024, on the grounds that the Clerk is unable to give judgment and Plaintiff must seek a court judgment. (See 10/29/24 Notices of Rejection.)

RELIEF REQUESTED

Default judgment against Defendants for a total of $28,873,506.00, which is comprised of: (1) $19,306,191.00 for the demand of the complaint, (2) $9,548,377.29 in interest, (3) $1,222.11 in costs, and (4) attorneys’ fees in the amount of $17,715.00.

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 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’s default judgment package is still deficient. Initially, the Court notes that Plaintiff has sought a judgment by default from the Clerk—which is improper—and Plaintiff must seek a default judgment from the Court. Plaintiff also failed to submit a CIV-100 request for court judgment form. Further, Plaintiff has failed to complete a declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant against whom judgment is sought. Moreover, the exhibits attached to Plaintiff’s declaration in support of default judgment does not substantiate the $28,854,568.89 in claimed damages. (Haupt Decl. at p. 9:20.) Plaintiff has submitted no exhibits showing that any monies were transmitted from Plaintiff to Defendants. Moreover, although requesting attorneys’ fees, Plaintiff does not indicate whether such fees are allowed by statute or agreement of the parties.

Lastly, the Court notes that no proofs of service have been filed showing that the operative FAC was served on Defendants.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff David Haupt’s request for default judgment.    The Order to Show Cause re Entry of Default Judgment is continued to February 25, 2025 at 8:30 a.m.  There will be no further continuances.