Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 23STCV10829, Date: 2024-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV10829    Hearing Date: January 31, 2024    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Madison Plaza Homeowners Association (“Plaintiff”) seeks default judgment against Defendants Cherissa C. Liang and Xiao-Yi Xiao (collectively, “Defendants”).

Plaintiff requests:

(1)  legal fees in the amount of $17,856.00;

(2)  costs of litigation in the amount of $844.15;

(3) a permanent injunction requiring Defendants to cease renting their property within Plaintiff homeowner association for terms of less than 30 days; remove their property’s listing from AirBnB; and submit a copy of any rental or lease agreement along with a completed Owner/Resident Information Form to Plaintiff within 48 hours of the beginning of any new rental of their property with a term of 30 days or more.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for default judgment IN PART. The requested attorney’s fees are reduced to $5,000.00. The Court will strike out the $17,856.00 in legal fees from the proposed judgment and include $5,000.00 instead.  The Court grants costs and injunctive relief as requested.

Background

Defendants own property within Plaintiff homeowner association. Property owners within the association are subject to governing documents which include a set of rules and regulations. The governing documents prohibit owners from engaging in short-term rentals of less than 30 days.

Defendants regularly rent their property within Plaintiff homeowner association through AirBnB. Plaintiff contends that this violates the above restrictions.

Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants C on May 15, 2023, alleging breach of Plaintiff’s governing documents and seeking injunctive relief and damages.

On August 21, 2023, the Court entered default against Liang. On August 29, 2023, the Court entered default against Xiao.

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

Service of the Complaint and Summons

The proof of service filed by Plaintiff on June 22, 2023 shows that Xiao was served on May 26, 2023 at 335 S. Madison Avenue, Unit 217, Pasadena, CA 91101 by substituted service on Daniel Xiao, indicated to by Xiao’s son or co-occupant.

Dismissal of Other Parties

The Doe defendants were dismissed on December 13, 2023 pursuant to Plaintiff’s request.

Non-Military Status

Daniel C. Heaton avers that Xiao and Liang are not in military service.

Summary of the Case

Plaintiff provides a brief summary of the case in its Summary of the Case in Support of Plaintiff’s Request for Default Judgment.

Evidence of Damages

“[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.)

          Plaintiff does not seek damages in this case.

Interest

Plaintiff does not provide any interest computation.

Memorandum of Costs and Disbursements

Plaintiff provides a memorandum of costs wherein Daniel C. Heaton avers that Plaintiff spent $844.15 in costs on this action.

Attorney’s Fees

          Plaintiff requests a total of $17,856.00 in attorney’s fees, comprised of $4,992.00 in pre-litigation attorney’s fees and an additional $12,864.00 in attorney’s fees incurred during this litigation.

In this case, attorney’s fees are provided for by contract. Local Rule 3.214 provides the schedule for attorney’s fees on default judgment in a contract case, which applies “unless otherwise determined by the court.” (California Rules of Court, Rule 3.214.) Here, there are no damages. Thus, this case does not reach the minimum threshold for an award of attorney’s fees within Rule 3.214’s default framework, which requires at least $0.01 in damages for the minimum award of $75.00.

The Court finds that there is reason in this case to use the discretion granted by Local Rule 3.214 to alter the default structure for attorney’s fees. However, the amount of fees demanded by Plaintiff is excessive in light of the fact that this is still a default judgment. The Court deems that an award of $5,000.00 in attorney’s fees is appropriate for this case.

Local Rule 3.214

Proposed Form of Judgment

          Plaintiff provides a proposed form of judgment.

Submission of the Written Agreement

          This action is not based on a written obligation to pay money.

Statement of Damages

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