Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 24STCV14613, Date: 2025-03-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV14613 Hearing Date: March 17, 2025 Dept: 72
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT 72
TENTATIVE
RULING
|
WESTLAKE SERVICES LLC, Plaintiff, v. NICOLE WILSON, Defendant. |
Case No:
24STCV14613 Hearing Date: March 17, 2025 Calendar Number: 5 |
Plaintiff Westlake Services LLC (“Plaintiff”) seeks default
judgment against Defendant Nicole Wilson (“Defendant”).
Plaintiff requests:
(1) money judgment in the amount of $38,065.03, consisting
of:
(a) damages in the amount of $36,059.74;
(b) costs in the amount of $533.50;
and
(c) attorney’s fees in the amount
of $1,471.79.
The
Court finds that Plaintiff has not adequately shown how it accrued $36,059.74
in damages. The Court requests that Plaintiff provide further evidence as to
why it is owed $36,059.74 in damages and explain the nature of the charge-off
which resulted in the final balance of $0.00.
This case relates to a promissory note between Plaintiff and
Defendant. The following facts are taken from the allegations of the Complaint,
except where otherwise noted. The Court accepts the allegations of the
Complaint, except for damages, as true for the purposes of the default
judgment.
On July 13, 2021, Plaintiff entered a Conditional Sale
Contract and Security Agreement (the “Agreement”) with Premium Autos Inc
(“Premium Autos”) for the purchase of a Ford Transit 250 Van (the “Vehicle”).
(Complaint ¶¶ 5-9, Ex. 1.)
As part of the Agreement, Defendant was loaned $34,411.41 in
credit to finance the purchase. (Alvizar Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. 1 at p. 2; see also
Complaint, Ex. 1 at p. 2.)
Premium Auto subsequently assigned its rights and interests
under the Agreement to Plaintiff. (Complaint ¶ 10.)
Plaintiff failed to make required installation payments, and
the principal was accelerated under the terms of the Agreement. (Complaint ¶
13.)
Plaintiff filed this action on June 11, 2024, raising claims
for (1) breach of contract; and (2) money lent, paid, or expended.
On February 20, 2025, default was entered against Defendant.
Code of Civil Procedure, section 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 that are 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.
According
to the proof of service filed on June 26, 2024, Defendant was served on June
26, 2024 at 8800 John Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90002 via personal
service.
The Doe defendants were dismissed from the action on February
27, 2025, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request.
Plaintiff has filed a form CIV-100 seeking default judgment.
Christopher D. Mandarich avers to Defendant’s non-military
status.
Plaintiff provides a brief summary of the case in its Declaration
in Support of Application for Default Judgment. 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, 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.)
Maribel Alvizar avers that the initial principal sum owed
under the Agreement was $36,059.74. (Alvizar Decl. ¶ 5.) Alvizar avers that
Defendant now owes Plaintiff $36,059.74 under the Agreement. (Alvizar Decl. ¶
8.) Plaintiff provides a customer account statement indicating the amounts
still owed by Defendant. (Alvizar Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. B.) Plaintiff has neither
repossessed nor sold the Vehicle. (Alvizar Decl. ¶ 7.)
Alvizar avers that the last payment Plaintiff received from
Defendant was on October 16, 2021. (Alvizar Decl. ¶ 6.)
There appear to be problems with Plaintiff’s damages
prove-up.
First, the initial principal amount of $36,059.74 to which
Alvizar avers (Alvizar Decl. ¶ 5) is inconsistent with the initial principal
amount of $34,411.41 evidenced by Contract (Alvizar Decl., Ex. 1 at p. 2) and
the customer account statement. (Alvizar Decl., Ex. 2 at p. 1.) It is possible
that this is a typographical error, as $36,059.74 is also the amount that
Plaintiff claims that it is owed.
More concerningly, it is not clear how the customer account
statement evidences a final amount owed of $36,059.74. The account balance
amount started at $34,411.41 and trended downward over the listed time period.
(Alvizar Decl., Ex. 2 at pp. 1-2.) On October 16, 2021, the date of Defendant’s
last payment (Alvizar Decl. ¶ 6), the amount was $33,316.41. (Alvizar Decl. Ex.
2, p. 2.) The balance remained at $33,316.41 until March 31, 2022, when it was
apparently charged off and reduced to $0.00. (Alvizar Decl., Ex. 2 at pp. 2-5.)
At no point in the account statement does the balance rise above the initial
amount of $34,411.41. (Alvizar Decl., Ex. 2.)
The
Court finds that Plaintiff has not adequately shown how it accrued $36,059.74
in damages. The Court requests that Plaintiff provide further evidence as to
why it is owed $36,059.74 in damages and explain the nature of the charge-off
which resulted in the final balance of $0.00.
Plaintiff does not seek prejudgment interest.
Plaintiff includes a memorandum of costs in the submitted
Form CIV-100. Christopher D. Mandarich avers that Plaintiff expended $533.50 in
costs.
Plaintiff
requests $1,471.79 in attorney’s fees.
The
Court defers ruling on the issue of attorney’s fees until Plaintiff’s damages
are clarified.
Plaintiff
has submitted a proposed form of judgment.
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. 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.
The
Court has already issued an order authorizing the submission of copies in lieu
of the originals.
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.