Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 19STCV25208, Date: 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV25208    Hearing Date: April 8, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

DEFAULT JUDGMENT REVIEW

            The Court has identified the following deficiencies with Plaintiff’s default judgment packet:

-         Plaintiff must file an updated proposed judgment.

-         Plaintiff did not adequately address the following issues previously raised. For example:

o   Plaintiff must set forth a legal basis to recover from Mendiola individually for breach of contract (separate and apart from fraud) and explain how the damages award for breach of contract is not duplicative or overlapping with the damages awarded via the settlement agreement. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is liable as the agent of Defendants. While agents can be personally liable fort torts, the same analysis does not apply to agents’ liability for breaches of contract. Here, Plaintiff’s statement of the case does not state that Mendiola is the alter-ego of Defendants, and Mendiola does not appear to have signed the agreement in his personal capacity. Moreover, Plaintiff has reached a settlement with the Defendants who signed the agreement, and thus Plaintiff presumably is recovering damages incurred for the alleged breach. Plaintiff must clarify these issues.

o   Plaintiff’s application now removes a damages section which he had previously been instructed to include, and which set forth a breakdown of the estimated damages. Plaintiff does not address any of the issues previously raised by this Court—namely, how these damages amounts were calculated. Plaintiff claims approximately $10,000 in loss rents and evictions of two tenants, without any citation to evidence or even a specific declaration statement. Plaintiff claims there was a total income loss of $109,080 but Plaintiff does not provide any support for this otherwise precise calculation. Plaintiff claims the estimated cost as of April 2021 for permitting the property is $125,000, but does not submit the April 2021 estimate to show this. Even Plaintiff’s own declaration does not set forth these amounts, or corroborate these claims, but rather just reiterates that he seeks damages in the amount of $250,000 as an alleged in the Complaint.  Claims of damages set forth in an application unsupported by declaration or extrinsic evidence are without foundation.   

Plaintiff to refile entire default judgment packet within 30 days.