PROCEEDINGS: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT 

MOVING PARTY: VZ Construction Company  

RESPONDING PARTY: Jose Matia Maranon dba J&J General Contractors 

BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff VZ Construction Company entered into a construction subcontract agreement with Defendant Jose Matia Maranon dba J&J General Contractors.  Under the agreement, Defendant agreed to provide stucco and related services to the real property located at 722 N. Camden Dr., Beverly Hills, California (the “Property”).  In exchange, Plaintiff agreed to pay Defendant $81,400.   

The subcontract attached a schedule which Defendant initialed, requiring Defendant to begin work on August 10, 2021 and to complete work by September 10, 2021.  The subcontract further provided for liquidated damages of $250 per day for any delay. 

Plaintiff paid Defendant $21,000 as an initial payment to purchase materials and commence work on August 10, 2021.  However, Defendant failed to begin work as agreed and to deliver any materials to the site.  Defendant’s failure to perform continued for 28 days, at which point Plaintiff was left no choice but to fire Defendant.  After termination, Plaintiff requested a refund of the $21,000 but no money has been returned.   

On July 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging four claims for (1) breach of written contract, (2) conversion, (3) constructive trust, and (4) declaratory relief.  The Complaint seeks $21,000 in damages plus interest, attorneys’ fees and costs.   

Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing Defendant was served by substitute service on August 7, 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 September 21, 2023.  Plaintiff requested a default judgment.  Plaintiff served Defendants by mail with both the Request for Entry of Default and Request for Default Judgment.   

RELIEF REQUESTED 

Default judgment against Defendant for a total of $35,333.60 consisting of (1) $28,000 in damages, (2) $6,720 in prejudgment interest at the rate of 10% per annum, and (3) $613.60 in 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 failed to complete a CIV-100 seeking court judgment.  The only CIV-100 form on file was for entry of default, not entry of court judgment.  Moreover, the default judgment seeks an amount of damages in excess of the Complaint which would make the Default Judgment¿void.  The complaint states that damages are only $21,000.  However, the proposed Court Judgment identified damages to be $28,000.  (Falahati v. Kondo (2005) 127¿Cal.App.4th¿823, 830-31 (stating that a court acts in excess of its jurisdiction and the resulting default judgment is void if the court awards default judgment in an amount greater than that demanded in the complaint, including if the complaint does not specify the amount demanded).) 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER  

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff VZ Construction Company’s Request for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice as to Defendant Jose Matia Maranon dba J&J General Contractors.