Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 22STCV28018, Date: 2023-07-10 Tentative Ruling





1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling,
please email the clerk at SMCdept26@lacourt.org (and “cc” all
other parties in the same email) no later than 7:30 am on
the day of the hearing, and please notify all other parties in advance that you
will not be appearing at the hearing.  Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the
subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and
the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the
tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may
nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motion, and the Court may
decide not to adopt the tentative ruling.




2. 
For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in
advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to
either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its
discretion.




3. PLEASE DO NOT USE THIS
EMAIL (SMCdept26@lacourt.org) FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE
RULING.  The Court will not read or
respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.




4. IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT
PHYSICAL DISTANCING GOING FORWARD AND UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, THE COURT STRONGLY
ENCOURAGES ALL COUNSEL AND ALL PARTIES TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY FOR NON-TRIAL
AND NON-EVIDENTIARY MATTERS.  Thus, until further
notice, Department 26 strongly encourages telephonic appearances for motion
hearings that do not require the presentation of live testimony.




 






Case Number: 22STCV28018    Hearing Date: July 10, 2023    Dept: 26

The request for default judgment submitted on 5/2/23 cannot be granted for the following reasons:

 

1)     No request for dismissal (Judicial Council Form No. CIV-110) has been filed for all remaining named and unnamed defendants (including all un-served Doe defendants).  Plaintiff must file a CIV-110 as to all unnamed Doe defendants.

 

2)     A defendant who defaults admits only facts well pleaded in the complaint. Thus, if the complaint fails to state a cause of action, a default judgment is erroneous and will be set aside on appeal. (Molen v. Friedman (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1153-1154; Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 282; Grappo v. McMills (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 996, 1015.)  Here, the complaint fails to state a claim against, and the evidence submitted does not establish the basis for liability of defendant Ramiro Garcia.Per the complaint only Defendant Rolando Morales is the owner of the subject property who entered into an oral lease agreement with Plaintiffs. (Complaint ¶¶ 6, 8.)  Moreover, there is no evidence provided that Plaintiffs entered into a lease agreement with Defendant Ramiro Garcia.  Rather, Plaintiffs merely state that they agreed to rent the subject property without any specification that it was from both defendants or clearly specifying that both defendants own the subject property.  (Plaintiffs’ Decl. ¶ 1.) As such, Plaintiff must amend the complaint to add facts that state a claim against Defendant Ramiro Garcia.  Alternatively, Plaintiff may dismiss Ramiro Garcia prior to the next OSC hearing.

 

3)     Finally, Plaintiffs fail to substantiate and support all of the claimed damages

The complaint prays for three types of damages:

 

General damages of $245,000.00

 

Property damages of $30,000.00

 

And Restitution of $49,000.00

 

The restitution is clearly supported.  Plaintiffs’ complaint and evidence show that rent was $1000.00 per month, the Subject Property was not suitable for renting, and they rented for 49 months.

 

Similarly, some evidence is presented to support the claim for $245,000.00 in general damages for physical pain, mental suffering and emotional distress caused by living in substandard condition and Sonia Mabel Ramirez having her foot amputated.  (Plaintiffs’ Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. D.)

 

However, no evidence is presented to show any property damages of $30,000.00 as claimed in the complaint.

 

As such, evidence must be presented to support the claimed $30,000.00 for property damages.  Otherwise, or the request for said damages must be removed from the request for default and proposed judgment.  In addition, further evidence specifying the mental suffering and emotional distress should be submitted to further expand upon the claim for damages.

 

Plaintiffs will have an option at the July 10, 2023 hearing. (1) Plaintiffs may orally dismiss Ramiro Garcia and all Does and forego their request for $30,000 for property damages, in which case the Court will enter a default judgment against the remaining defendant Rolando Morales in the amount of $294,000.  (2) Alternatively, if Plaintiffs still wish to pursue their claims against Ramiro Garcia and their claim for $30,000 of property damages, they must amend their complaint to allege facts sufficient to state a claim against Ramiro Garcia, serve the amended complaint on both defendants, and if both defendants fail to respond, seek their defaults again.  Under this latter option, Plaintiffs will have to submit a new default judgment package correcting the defects identified above.  

 

At the July 10, 2023 hearing, Plaintiffs should be prepared to advise which of the two options they elect to pursue.