Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr, Case: 24SMCV03031, Date: 2025-04-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV03031    Hearing Date: April 29, 2025    Dept: 205

PROCEEDINGS:                          REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY:                   Porsche Financial Services, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY:       Anhelina Manzenko

BACKGROUND

This is a breach of contract case.  Defendant Anhelina Manzenko entered into a retail installment sale contract (“RISC”) with Porsche Downtown LA for a used 2020 Porsche Macan S, VIN Number WP1AB2A51LLB37924.  Porsche Downtown LA assigned its rights, title and interest in the RISC to Plaintiff. 

Manzenko defaulted by failing to make the payment due under the RISC, and Plaintiff demanded return of the car.  Plaintiff also accelerated the debt and demanded the full amount due under the RISC, which is $55,531.84 plus additional charges pursuant to the terms of the RISC and interest at the contractual rate of 7.49% per annum from March 29, 2024.  The RISC also provides that Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in enforcing the terms of the RISC.

Plaintiff is informed that the car is currently in the possession of Defendant Titan Collision Center.  Titan refused to release the car to Plaintiff’s agent.  Plaintiff estimates the approximate value of the car at $36,325.00.  As a result of the wrongful detention of the car, Plaintiff claims to have suffered the loss of the use and enjoyment of the car as well as losses from the depreciation and deterioration of the car.      

On June 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging claims for (1) possession of personal property, (2) deficiency of judgment, (3) foreclosure of security interest with deficiency judgment, (4) breach of express written contract, (5) money lent, and (6) account stated.  The Complaint seeks immediate possession of the car in addition to damages in the sum of $55,531.84, plus additional charges pursuant to the terms of the Agreement; for interest from March 29, 2024, at the contracted rate of 7.49% until paid in full; for prejudgment interest, and for reasonable attorneys fees and costs. 

Plaintiff served Titan by substitute service on September 26, 2024 and served Manzenko by publication in November 2024.  Defendants were obligated to respond but failed to do so.  Plaintiff successfully requested the entry of Defendant’s default, which was entered by the Clerk’s Office on January 23, 2025.  Plaintiff requested a default judgment on January 22, 2025. 

RELIEF REQUESTED

Default judgment against Manzenko for a total of $62,835.92, which is comprised of: (1) $55,531.84, for damages, (2) $3,418.63 for interest, (3) $2,000.63 for attorneys’ fees, and (4) $1,884.82, for costs. Plaintiff also requests (1) immediate possession of the car from Defendants; (2) any liens held by Titan as to the car are extinguished, and (3) any amount received upon auction or sale of the car minus costs and expenses of the sale, will be credited to Manzenko. 

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 filed a request for default judgment (CIV 100) as to Manzenko.  Therefore, its default package is incomplete.  As to Titan, Plaintiff has not filed a proposed default judgment (JUD 100), and so its default package against this Defendant is also incomplete. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Request for Default Judgment is DENIED.  The Order to Show Cause is continued to July 30, 2025 at 8:30 a.m.  The Court additionally sets an Order the Show Cause why default judgment has not been entered as to the DMV for the same date and time.