Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 20STCV40731, Date: 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV40731 Hearing Date: March 27, 2024 Dept: 72
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT 72
TENTATIVE
RULING
|
SHAWN B. AZIZZADEH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ALBERTO SANCHEZ, Defendant. |
Case No:
20STCV40731 Hearing Date: March 27, 2024 Calendar Number: 1 |
Plaintiff Bedford Law Group, APC (“Plaintiff”) seeks default
judgment against Defendant Alberto Sanchez (“Defendant”)
Plaintiff requests:
(1) money judgment in the amount of $18,652.35, consisting
of:
(a) damages in the amount of $15,000.00;
(b) interest in the amount of $1,717.81;
and
(c) costs in the
amount of $1,934.54, which includes $279.50 in attorney’s fees.
The Court CONTINUES Plaintiff’s request for default judgment.
Plaintiff must provide competent evidence of its damages. Plaintiff must remove
its request for interest unless it amends and serves the complaint with a
demand for interest. Plaintiff must state its request for attorney’s fees
separately from its request for costs.
This is an action for the recovery of attorney’s fees.
Plaintiff is a law firm. On October 6, 2015, Defendant
executed a written fee agreement (the “Agreement”) pursuant to which Defendant
retained Plaintiff to represent Defendant in connection with Defendant’s claims
resulting from a 2015 motor vehicle incident. Pursuant to the Agreement,
Defendant agreed to pay attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses that Plaintiff
incurred on Defendant’s behalf in connection with the representation.
Plaintiff performed legal services for Defendant from
October 6, 2015 to November 30, 2016. On November 30, 2016, the Law Offices of
Guy Frank Candelaria substituted in as Defendant’s counsel for the
representation in question.
On December 12, 2019, Defendant settled his claims arising
from the motor vehicle incident. Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff's attorney’s
fees, costs, and expenses under the Agreement. Neither Defendant nor the Law
Officers of Guy Frank Candelaria have paid any of the amounts owed to
Plaintiff.
Plaintiff and Shawn B. Azizzadeh filed this case on October
23, 2020. The First Amended Complaint is now the operative complaint. Azzizadeh
was removed as a plaintiff as of the FAC. The FAC raises claims for (1) breach
of contract; (2) quantum meruit; and (3) accounting.
Default was entered against Defendant on February 1, 2024.
CCP § 585 permits entry of a judgment after a Defendant has
failed to timely answer after being properly served. A party seeking judgment on the default by
the Court must file a Form CIV-100 Request for Court Judgment, and:
(1) Proof of service of the complaint and summons;
(2) A dismissal of
all parties against whom judgment is not sought (including Doe defendants) or
an application for separate judgment under CCP § 579, supported by a showing of
grounds for each judgment (CRC 3.1800(a)(7));
(3) A declaration
of non-military status as to the defendant (typically included in Form CIV-100)
(CRC 3.1800(a)(5));
(4) A brief summary of the case (CRC 3.1800(a)(1));
(5) Admissible
evidence supporting a prima facie case for the damages or other relief
requested (Johnson v. Stanhiser (1999)
72 Cal.App.4th 357, 361-362);
(6) Interest computations as necessary (CRC 3.1800(a)(3));
(7) A memorandum of
costs and disbursements (typically included in Form CIV-100 (CRC 3.1800(a)(4));
(8) A request for
attorney’s fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties (CRC
3.1800(a)(9)), accompanied by a declaration stating that the fees were
calculated in accordance with the fee schedule as per Local Rule 3.214. Where a request for attorney fees is based on
a contractual provision the specific provision must be cited; (Local Rule
3.207); and
(9) A proposed form
of judgment (CRC 3.1800(a)(6));
(10) Where an
application for default judgment is based upon a written obligation to pay
money, the original written agreement should be submitted for cancellation (CRC
3.1806). A trial court may exercise its discretion to accept a copy where the
original document was lost or destroyed by ordering the clerk to cancel the
copy instead (Kahn v. Lasorda's Dugout, Inc. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th
1118, 1124);
(11) Where the
plaintiff seeks damages for personal injury or wrongful death, they must serve
a statement of damages on the defendant in the same manner as a summons (Code
Civ. Proc. § 425.11, subd. (c), (d)).
(California Rules
of Court rule 3.1800.)
Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(a)(1), items are
allowable as costs under Section 1032 if they are “filing, motion, and jury
fees.”
A party who defaults only admits facts well pleaded in the
complaint or cross-complaint. (Molen
v. Friedman (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1153-1154.) Thus, the complaint must state a claim for
the requested relief.
Pursuant
to the Court’s July 21, 2022 order, Plaintiff served Defendant by publication
in La Opinión on November 13, 20, and 27, 2023.
The Doe defendants were dismissed from the action on February
6, 2024, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request.
Vahan Gabrielyan avers to Defendant’s non-military status.
Plaintiff provides a brief summary of the case in the
Declaration of Vahan Gabrielyan. Plaintiff adequately pleads its causes of
action in the Complaint.
“Code of Civil Procedure section 580 prohibits the entry of
a default judgment in an amount in excess of that demanded in the complaint.” (Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011)
201 Cal.App.4th 267, 286.) Moreover, “a statement of damages cannot be relied
upon to establish a plaintiff's monetary damages, except in cases of personal
injury or wrongful death.” (Ibid.) “In all other cases, when recovering
damages in a default judgment, the plaintiff is limited to the damages
specified in the complaint.” (Ibid.)
Moreover, there is a need for admissible evidence supporting a prima
facie case for the damages or other relief requested (Johnson v. Stanhiser (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 357, 361-362
Plaintiff
does not provide evidence proving the amount of damages owed. Plaintiff must
provide competent evidence proving up its damages. The Gabrielyan’s declaration
as to which amounts were demanded in the complaint is insufficient.
“[W]hen recovering damages in a default judgment, the
plaintiff is limited to the damages specified in the complaint.” (Kim v.
Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 286.) Thus, these
additional damages appear improper.
The FAC does not demand interest. Thus, Plaintiff cannot
obtain prejudgment interest on default unless it amends and re-serves the
complaint.
Plaintiff includes a memorandum of costs in the submitted
Form CIV-100, averring that it expended $1,934.54 in costs. $279.50 of this
amount is attorney’s fees, which must be requested as attorney’s fees, and not
costs.
Plaintiff
requests $279.50 in attorney’s fees.
Attorney’s fees on default are ordinarily determined
pursuant to Local Rule 3.214. Rule 3.214 calculates attorney’s fees based on
the damages in the case. Plaintiff must first provide evidence of damages in
order for attorney’s fees to be calculated.
Plaintiff
has submitted a proposed form of judgment, but it will likely require revisions
for the reasons stated above.
California
Rule of Court 3.1806 states that “unless otherwise ordered” judgment upon a
written obligation to pay money requires a clerk’s note across the face of the
writing that there has been a judgment. Here, Plaintiff has not submitted the
original documents. The Court does not discern any practical need for such a
clerk’s note on the written obligation in the current case and therefore orders
that it need not be included. If this causes any issues for any party or
non-party they are authorized to bring the matter to the Court’s
attention.
Plaintiff does not need to submit a statement of damages
because this is not a personal injury or wrongful death case.