PROCEEDINGS: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT 

MOVING PARTY: Ally Bank  

RESPONDING PARTY: Oleg Shishkin, Nicholas Fuentes, Old Earl Scheib Paint and Body, and California Department of Motor Vehicles 

BACKGROUND 

This case arises from a breach of a car sales contract.  Plaintiff Ally Bank is the assignee and owner of a written contract (the “Contract”) pursuant to which Defendant Oleg Shishkin bought a 2020 Toyota Camry, VIN No. 4T1G11AK8LU509019 (the “Car”).  Shishkin breached the Contract by failing to make regular monthly payments.  The amount due and owing under the Contract is now $26,166.80.   

Shishkin also breached the Contract by transferring the Car to Defendants Nicholas Fuentes and Old Earl Scheib Paint and Body (“Body Shop”), causing a large lien to be owed on the Car.  Shishkin transferred the Car to the Body Shop to repair and/or store the Car.  The Car has accrued labor, tow, and storage fees in excess of $7,895.00.   

Under the Contract, Plaintiff may take immediate possession of the Car upon any default by Shishkin.  Prior to the commencement of this action, Plaintiff made a demand on Defendants for surrender of possession of the Car, but Defendants have failed and refused to return the Car.   

The Body Shop has applied to the California Department of Motor Vehicles for approval to conduct a lien sale which Plaintiff opposed.  Plaintiff has offered the Body Shop the maximum statutory amount a finance company is obligated to pay pursuant to Civ. Code § 3068, but the Body Shop rejected Plaintiff’s offer. 

On March 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging five claims for (1) claim and delivery of personal property, pre-trial writ of possession and order directing transfer of personal property, (2) money due on a contract, (3) conversion, (4) quiet title and (5) declaratory relief.  The Complaint seeks recovery of the Car, damages in the amount of $28,166.80, plus interest and attorneys’ fees and costs.     

Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing Shishkin was personally served on April 11, 2023, the Body Shop Defendants were personally served on March 30, 2023, and the DMV’s agent for service of process was personally served on March 1, 2023.  Defendants were obligated to respond within 30 days.  Defendants did not do so.  Plaintiff successfully requested the entry of Defendants’ default, which was entered by the Clerk’s Office on June 26, 2023.  Plaintiff requested a default judgment on June 26, 2023.  Plaintiff served the request for entry of default and request for default judgment by mail.  Defendants have not appeared. 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

Default judgment against Shishkin (1) for possession of the Car, (2) for damages in the amount of $28,166, attorneys’ fees in the sum of $1,235.00 and costs in the amount of $955.65, for a total of $30,357.45, and (3) in the event Plaintiff regains the Car, the amount of proceeds of the sale of the vehicle will be credited to Shishkin’s account and this Judgment. Since the request was filed, Shishkin has been dismissed. 

Default judgment against the Body Shop that (1) Plaintiff is adjudicated the legal owner of the Car, (2) judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Body Shop for possession of the Car, (3) Plaintiff be entitled to judgment against Body Shop for the fair market value of the Car in the amount of $23,688, representing its wholesale value, and in the event Plaintiff regains the Car, the proceeds of the sale of the Car will be credited to the Judgment, and (4) Plaintiff be awarded attorneys’ fees pursuant to Civ. Code section 3068(d), in an amount of $1,750. 

Default judgment against the DMV (1) to honor and accept as valid Plaintiff’s prior perfect security interest in the Car which was issued on or about December 2, 2020, (2) to the extent that a new and/or conflicting ownership certificate was issued by the DMV for the Car, DMV is ordered to rescind, vacate and invalidate such ownership certificate and to reissue a new ownership certificate listing Plaintiff as the legal owner, and (3) to the extent there is any type of “hold” on the title or registration on the Car, DMV is to remove any such hold so as to allow Plaintiff to sell the Car once it regains possession.   

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 has complied with all the substantive and procedural requirements for a default judgment against the remaining three defendants. Default judgment will be granted as requested against them.    

CONCLUSION AND ORDER  

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Ally Bank’s Request for Default Judgment is GRANTED, except that it is DENIED as to Defendant Shishkin who has been dismissed.