PROCEEDINGS: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT 

MOVING PARTY: Fox Holdings, LLC  

RESPONDING PARTY: Triller, Inc.  

BACKGROUND 

This is a breach of contract case.  Defendant Triller Inc. entered into a contract with non-party Warner Bros. Digital Medial Sales (“Warner Bros.”), whereby Warner Bros. was to provide television and/or internet advertising.  Plaintiff Fox Holdings LLC is the successor in interest to Warner Bros.  Defendant defaulted in failing to make the required payments under the contract.     

On March 14, 2023, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant.  The Complaint alleges a single count for breach of contract.  The Complaint seeks $153,508.78 in damages plus interest at the statutory rate of 10%.    

Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing Defendant was served by substitute service on June 26, 2023.  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 August 14, 2023.  Plaintiff requested a default judgment on August 22, 2023. 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 $181,031.47, which is comprised of: (1) $153,508.78, for damages, (2) $23,553.60 for interest, (3) $3,425.09 for attorneys’ fees and (4) $544 for costs.  

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 not properly complied with the requirements for a default judgment. Plaintiff seeks attorneys’ fees of $3,425.09 but fails to state the statutory or contractual basis for the claim or state how the amount was calculated.  Also, Plaintiff’s proof of service indicates the complaint was served by substitute service, but there is no declaration of reasonable diligence or declaration of mailing attached to the proof of service.  (See 1 Cal. Affirmative Def. § 2:14 (2d ed.)¿(“The requirement that the plaintiff¿attempt personal service with reasonable diligence before use of¿substituted service is mandatory . . .¿[if] the requirement is not satisfied, the¿substituted service will be¿ineffective.”).)  To serve a complaint by¿substitute service, one¿must first attempt personal service and thereafter serve the papers by mail.¿ (Espindola v. Nunez (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1389, 1392 (two or three attempts at personal service will satisfy the requirement of reasonable diligence).) 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER  

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Fox Holdings, LLC’s Request for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.