Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 23STCV18888, Date: 2025-03-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV18888    Hearing Date: March 5, 2025    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Caribbean Blues, Inc. submits a from CIV-100 requesting the entry of default against Defendants Broken Halos, LLC (“Broken Halos”) and Peggy Mares (collectively, “Defendants”). The Court believes based on Plaintiff’s case management statement that it was Plaintiff’s intent to seek default judgment against Defendants.

Plaintiff requests:

(1) money judgment in the amount of $58,377.02, consisting of:

(a) damages in the amount of $47,958.06;

(b) interest in the amount of $7,897.14;

(c) costs in the amount of $695.14;

(d) attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,828.68.

The Court GRANTS the request for default judgment.

Background

This dispute arises out of a series of twenty four invoice agreements (the “Agreements”) under which Plaintiff sold Broken Halos textiles. Although Plaintiff delivered the purchased goods and Broken Halos accepted them, Broken Halos failed to pay money owed under the agreements.

Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant Broken Halos and former defendant Peggy Mares (“Mares”) (collectively, “Defendants”) on August 9, 2023, raising claims for (1) breach of contract; (2) account stated; (3) goods had and received; and (4) open book account.

Default was entered against Defendants on October 10, 2023.

On February 20, 2024, the Court vacated the default entered against Mares.

On April 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of automatic stay as to all parties caused by the filing of a bankruptcy action by Defendant Mares. On May 1, 2024, the Court set a Status Conference Re: Bankruptcy for October 23, 2024.

On October 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed a request for the dismissal of Mares from this action without prejudice.

On October 23, 2024, the Court held the status conference. At the hearing, Plaintiff represented that it would be filing a new default packet and the Court set an OSC re entry default judgment. Plaintiff’s counsel informed the Court that the bankruptcy had been discharged and a

On October 25, 2024, Mares was dismissed form this action without prejudice pursuant to Plaintiff’s request.

On January 2, 2025, Plaintiff requested default judgment against Broken Halos.

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

            Defendants were both served with the Complaint and summons on September 7, 2023.

Dismissal of Other Parties

The Doe defendants were dismissed from the action on November 13, 2023, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request. Defendant Mare was dismissed from this action on October 25, 2024, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request.

Because the stay of the case related to bankruptcy proceedings involving Defendant Mare, the dismissal obviates the reason for the stay.  The Court explicitly rules that the stay is lifted.

Non-Military Status

Audrey S. Ali avers to Broken Halo’s non-military status.

Summary of the Case

Plaintiff provides a brief summary of the case in its Case Management Statement filed on November 27, 2023. Plaintiff adequately pleads its 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.)

            Kambiz Kashani avers that Broken Halos owes Plaintiff $47,956.06 in principal based on the Agreements. (Kashani Decl. ¶ 5.)

Interest

The Agreements provide for interest at the rate of 10% per year. The Complaint requests interest. Interest is permissible in this case because the damages are made certain by the Agreements.

Audrey S. Ali avers that Plaintiff is entitled to $7,897.14 in interest and provides supporting calculations. (Kashani Decl. ¶ 14.)

Memorandum of Costs and Disbursements

Audrey S. Ali avers that Plaintiff expended $695.14 in costs.

Attorney’s Fees

            The Agreements provide for the recovery of attorney’s fees.

Plaintiff requests $1,828.68 in attorney’s fees.

This is an action on a contract. Because the judgment is between $10,000.01 and $500,000, the maximum recovery of attorney’s fees is equal to $690 plus 3% of the excess over $10,000. (Local Rule 3.214.) Thus, the maximum attorney fee award is $1,828.68. Plaintiff’s request is proper.

Proposed Form of Judgment

            Plaintiff has submitted a proposed form of judgment.

Submission of the Written Agreement

            California Rule of Court 3.1806 states that “unless otherwise ordered” judgment upon a written obligation 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. 

Statement of Damages

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