Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr, Case: 24SMCV01843, Date: 2025-01-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24SMCV01843 Hearing Date: January 13, 2025 Dept: 205
|
JONATHAN SHAPIRO, trustee of the
Jonathan Shapiro and Helene Shapiro Trust, Plaintiff, v. DANYEL BENHAGHNAZAR, et al., Defendants. |
Case No.: 24SMCV01843 Hearing Date: 1/13/25 Trial Date: N/A [TENTATIVE] RULING RE: DEFAULT JUDGMENT APPLICATION |
Background
On April 18, 2024,
Plaintiff Jonathan Shapiro, trustee of the Jonathan Shapiro and Helene Shapiro
Trust (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Danyel Benhaghnazar
(“Benhaghnazar”), Stella Yaghoubzadeh (“Yaghoubzadeh”) (collectively,
“Defendants”), and Does 1-20, alleging a sole cause of action for breach of
contract. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay rent due under a
contract. (Compl., ¶¶ 7-9.)
Defendant
Yaghoubzadeh was served with the summons and complaint on July 2, 2024 via
substituted service.
Defendant
Benhaghnazar was served with the summons and complaint on July 11, 2024 via
substituted service.
On August 27,
2024, default was entered against Defendant Benhaghnazar.
On August 29,
2024, default was entered against Defendant Yaghoubzadeh.
On October 30,
2024, pursuant to a request for dismissal filed by Plaintiff, Does 1-20 were
dismissed from the complaint without prejudice.
On October 30,
2024, Plaintiff filed a Judicial Council CIV-100 Request for Clerk’s Judgment
form, which was rejected by the Court on November 4, 2024 on the grounds that
the Clerk cannot grant judgment. (11/04/24 Notice of Rejection.) Plaintiff was
advised to seek court judgment. (11/04/24 Notice of Rejection.)
On November 8,
2024, Plaintiff filed a proposed judgment form on Judicial Council form
JUD-100.
Entry of Default Judgment
Standard
California Rules
of Court, Rule 3.1800 sets forth the requirements for default judgments. In
pertinent part, the rule dictates that a party must use form CIV-100 and file
the following documents with the clerk: (1) except in unlawful detainer cases,
a brief summary of the case identifying the parties and the nature of
plaintiff's claim; (2) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of
the judgment requested; (3)¿interest computations as necessary; (4) a
memorandum of costs and disbursements; (5)¿a declaration of nonmilitary status
for each defendant against whom judgment is sought; (6) a proposed form of
judgment; (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or
an application for separate judgment against specified parties under Code of
Civil Procedure section 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each
judgment; (8)¿exhibits as necessary; and (9)¿a request for attorney fees if
allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. Cal. Rules of Court,
Rule 3.1800(a)(1)-(9).
Analysis
The Court finds that Plaintiff has
failed to meet the requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule
3.1800 to obtain entry of default judgment against Defendants. Plaintiff has
failed to: (1) provide a brief summary of the case; (2) provide any
declarations or admissible evidence to support the entry of a default judgment;
(3) provide interest computations as necessary; (4) provide a memorandum of
costs and disbursements; (5) file a declaration of nonmilitary status as to each
defendant; (6) file a request for court judgment on form CIV-100; and (7) provide
the Court with any exhibits in support of a default judgment against Defendants.
Conclusion
Based on the
foregoing, Plaintiff’s default judgment application is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
Dated: January 13, 2025
__________________________________________
Edward B. Moreton, Jr.
Judge of the Superior Court