PROCEEDINGS: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT 

MOVING PARTY: Capital One, N.A. 

RESPONDING PARTY: Alexandra Edenborough 

BACKGROUND 

Defendant Alexandra Edenborough had a credit account with Plaintiff Capital One, N.A. that has defaulted.  Plaintiff made demand for the unpaid balance due, and Defendant has not paid.  There are no outstanding or unresolved disputes on the account.   

On August June 13, 2024 Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant, with a single cause of action for common counts.  The Complaint seeks $56,745.78 in damages.  

Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing Defendant was substitute served with the Complaint on June 19, 2024.  Defendant was obligated to respond.  Defendant did not do so. Plaintiff successfully requested the entry of Defendant’s default, which was entered by the Clerk’s Office on August 28, 2024.  Plaintiff requested a default judgment on December 3, 2024.  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 $57,338.78, which is comprised of: (1) $56,745.78, for damages, and (2) $593, for costs.  

ANALYSIS 

Code Civ. Proc. § 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 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 Code Civ. Proc. § 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 fully complied with the requirements for substitute service.  Plaintiff substitute served Defendant through an employee at a commercial post office box that Defendant was renting.  While substitute service is permissible on the employee of a commercial post office box (Hearn v. Howard (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th 1193, 1202), there was only one attempt made to serve Defendant at the private mailbox store.  The declaration of due diligence filed in connection with the proof of service shows that the process server attempted service once on June 19, 2024 at 3:54 p.m.  Ordinarily, reasonable diligence requires two or three attempts at personal service at a proper place.  (Espindola v. Nunez (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1389, 1392.) 

In addition, Plaintiff has submitted the declaration of its CEO, Michelle Imhotep, but it is not clear from the declaration how Ms. Imhotep has personal knowledge of the facts alleged in her declaration.  For example, she attests that “[i]n some instances, Defendant Jacobs used funds from the business accounts of Legacy and Independence to pay his personal expenses.”  But how would she know this fact, simply by virtue of being the CEO of Plaintiff?  “Where the facts stated do not themselves show it, such a bare statement [that the affiant has personal knowledge] has no redeeming value and should be ignored.”  (Snider v. Snider (1962) 200 Cal.App.2d 742, 754.)   

CONCLUSION AND ORDER  

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment.  The Court sets an Order to Show Cause Why the Case Should not be dismissed on April 10, 2025 at 8:30 a.m.