Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 22STCV39938, Date: 2024-04-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV39938    Hearing Date: April 8, 2024    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs Alicia Avila Martinez, Gerardo Quiroz, Valeria Gonzalez Martinez, Jose Guzman, Liczy Guzman, Hillary Tadeo Islas Gonzalez (by and through her guardian ad litem Valeria Gonzalez Martinez), Vilma Lopez, Edverth Lopez, Maria Lopez, Kimberly Lopez, Karicia Lopez, and Kevin Cardenas (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) seek default judgment against Defendants Ferman Ceja and Teresa Ceja (collectively, “Defendants”).

Plaintiffs request damages in the amount of $8,500,000.00.

The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for default judgment as currently requested.  Plaintiffs must submit a Form CIV-100.  Moreover, the current complaint does not support a default damage amount of $8,500,000.  Plaintiff may wish to change their request for damages or amend the Complaint.

The Court sets a status conference re default judgment for June 17, 2024 at 8:30 a.m.  Plaintiffs to give notice.

Background

This is a landlord-tenant case. Plaintiffs lived at various properties owned by Defendants at 1605, 1607, and 1607 1/2 W. 12th Street, Los Angeles, California 90015 (collectively, the “Properties”).

Plaintiffs allege that the Properties suffered from a myriad of issues, including bed bug, cockroach, and rat infestations, plumbing and electrical problems, mold, crumbling walls and ceilings, heating issues, unreliable water, broken windows, and unstable foundations. Since 2007, the Los Angeles Housing Department (“LAHD”) has issued at least eight Notices and Orders to Comply to Defendants for violations of housing and health and safety laws at the Properties.

Plaintiffs repeatedly complained of the conditions of the Properties to Defendants, but Defendants did not resolve the problems. Defendants and their agents also threatened to evict Plaintiffs, failed to give proper notice of entry to Plaintiffs’ units, and screamed at Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs filed this action on December 22, 2022. The Complaint asserts 12 causes of action: (1) Negligence; (2) Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability; (3) Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; (4) Nuisance; (5) Premises Liability; (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (7) Violation of Civil Code Section 1942.4 (Collection of Rent on Substandard Dwelling Units); (8) Willful Interruption of Services; (9) Retaliation; (10) Harassment; (11) Violation of the Unfair Competition Law (Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.); and (12) Violation of Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance (Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 45.30 et seq.).

Default was entered against Defendants on January 4, 2024.

Legal Standard

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.

Discussion

As an initial matter, Plaintiffs have not submitted a Form CIV-100 seeking default judgment. They must do so before the Court can grant default judgment.

Service of the Complaint and Summons

            On August 17, 2023, the Court ordered service by publication as to both Defendants. Plaintiffs filed proof of publication in the Los Angeles Daily Journal on October 31, 2023.

Dismissal of Other Parties

On March 21, 2024 Plaintiff requested that the Doe defendants be dismissed.

Non-Military Status

Laura Matter avers to Defendants’ nonmilitary status.

Summary of the Case

Plaintiffs provide a brief summary of the case. Plaintiffs adequately pleads their causes of action in the Complaint.

Evidence of Damages

“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, a plaintiff must submit 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.)

            Plaintiffs request $8,500,000.00 in damages, as well as punitive damages in an amount that they do not specify. The Complaint does not appear to demand this amount in damages. While the Complaint request certain civil penalties on a ‘per-violation’ basis, it does not clearly demand a specific amount. Plaintiffs are limited to the actual amount of damages demanded in the Complaint and must therefore either amend and republish the Complaint or amend their request for default judgment.

Interest

Plaintiffs do not request pre-judgment interest.

Memorandum of Costs and Disbursements

Plaintiffs do not request costs.

Attorney’s Fees

            Plaintiffs do not request attorney’s fees.

Proposed Form of Judgment

            Plaintiffs have submitted a proposed form of judgment as required.

Statement of Damages

Plaintiff does not need to submit a statement of damages because this is not a personal injury or wrongful death case.