Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 24STCV18076, Date: 2025-01-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV18076 Hearing Date: January 29, 2025 Dept: 72
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT 72
TENTATIVE
RULING
|
PATRICIA DREWES, Plaintiff, v. LAURA ADAMS, Defendant. |
Case No:
24STCV18076 Hearing Date: January 29, 2025 Calendar Number: 11 |
Plaintiff Patricia Drewes (“Plaintiff”) seeks default
judgment against Defendant Laura Adams (“Defendant”).
Plaintiff requests:
(1) money judgment in the amount of $29,940.00, consisting
of:
(a) damages in the amount of $26,641.00;
(b) prejudgment interest in the
amount of $2664.00; and
(c) costs in the amount of $635.00.
The Court requests that Plaintiff provide her interest
computations. Once this is resolved, the Court is prepared to enter default
judgment based on the materials provided to it.
This is a financial elder abuse and fraud case. The
following facts are taken from the allegations of the Complaint.
Defendant is an interior design contractor. In August, 2020,
Plaintiff had a design consultation with Defendant for the purpose of
discussing handling drapery work and the reupholstering of certain furniture in
Plaintiff’s home. Defendant presented Plaintiff with a proposal. Plaintiff
agreed to the proposal and paid Defendant a retainer fee to begin the work.
Part of the parties’ agreement was that Defendant would
assist Plaintiff with fabric selections and present different layouts of design
work. Defendant did this on two occasions, and was paid from the initial
retainer fee and an additional fee on July 8, 2021. Plaintiff does not seek
reimbursement for these amounts. (Drewes Decl. ¶ 3.)
During the next several months, Defendant emailed Plaintiff
a series of invoices for fabrics that Defendant said she needed to purchase and
for laborers that Defendant said she needed to pay. During this time, Plaintiff
frequently contacted Defendant regarding the status of the interior design
project and for updates on the fabric orders. Defendant told Plaintiff that
there was a delay due to the Covid-19 pandemic and some fabric orders were on
backorder. Defendant never addressed the payments that Plaintiff had made for
the laborers. Plaintiff continued to make payments when presented with
invoices, the last three of which were presented within a short timeframe.
Plaintiff alleges that no fabrics were ever ordered and no
laborers were ever hired.
In October, 2022, Plaintiff and Defendant agreed to meet in
person to go to design centers in Los Angeles and make purchases. However,
Defendant stopped communicating with Plaintiff after this time.
Plaintiff filed this action on July 18, 2024, raising claims
for (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of implied-in-fact contract; (3) breach
of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4) fraud; (5) negligent
misrepresentation; (6) unjust enrichment; (7) financial elder abuse; and (8)
unfair competition.
On October 2, 2024, default was entered against Defendant.
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 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 July 30, 2024, Defendant was served on July
29, 2024 at 917 S Longwood Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90019 via substitute
service on Michael Adams.
The Doe defendants were dismissed from the action on November
22, 2024, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request.
Plaintiff has filed a form CIV-100 seeking default judgment.
Catina Irvin avers to Defendant’s non-military status.
Plaintiff provides a brief summary of the case in the
declaration of Catina L. Irvin. Plaintiff adequately pleads her 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.)
Plaintiff avers in her declaration that she paid Defendant a
total of $29,521.00 as requested in the fraudulent invoices. (Drewes Decl. ¶
5.) This amount is greater than the $26,641.00 that Plaintiff actually seeks in
damages. Plaintiff has adequately evidenced her damages.
The Complaint requests prejudgment interest.
Plaintiff seeks prejudgment interest in the amount of
$2,664.00 based on an annual rate of 10 percent. (See Civ. Code, § 3289, subd.
(b).)
California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a)(3) requires that a
Plaintiff provide their interest computations when seeking interest on default
judgment. Plaintiff has not done so here. The Court requests that Plaintiff
provide her interest computations.
Plaintiff includes a memorandum of costs in the submitted
Form CIV-100. Catina Irvin avers that Plaintiff expended $635.00 in costs.
Plaintiff
does not request attorney’s fees.
Plaintiff
has not 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. 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.