Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 24STCV30996, Date: 2025-04-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV30996 Hearing Date: April 7, 2025 Dept: 72
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT 72
TENTATIVE
RULING
|
FRENCH FABRIC, INC., Plaintiff, v. VA VA VOOM, Defendant. |
Case No:
24STCV30996 Hearing Date: April 7, 2025 Calendar Number: 8 |
Plaintiff French Fabric, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) seeks default
judgment against Defendant Va Va Voom (“Defendant”).
Plaintiff requests:
(1) money judgment in the amount of $, consisting of:
(a)
general damages in the amount of $196,811.80;
(b) special
damages in the amount of $39,000.00;
(c) prejudgment interest in the
amount of $51,062.24; and
(d) costs in the amount of $540.00.
The Court grants default judgment as requested. However, if
Plaintiff wishes to seek attorney’s fees, it must do so on default judgment,
and not afterwards.
This is a contract case. The following facts are taken from
the allegations of the Complaint, except where otherwise noted.
In 2022, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an ongoing
contractual relationship whereby Defendant regularly bought textile products
from Plaintiff. Plaintiff periodically issued invoices and statements for owed
amounts to Defendant.
Defendant failed to make a significant number of payments on
the owed amounts. Additionally, Defendant issued 26 checks payable to Plaintiff
which were returned by Defendant’s financial institution due to insufficient
funds. Plaintiff demanded the amounts owed on the invoices. Plaintiff
additionally made a written demand on Defendant for payment of the amounts in
the bounced checks. Plaintiff alleges that these amounts remain unpaid.
Plaintiff filed this action on November 25, 2024, raising
claims for (1) breach of contract; (2) open book account; (3) account stated;
(4) unjust enrichment; (5) money due on dishonored checks under Civil Code,
sections 1719 and 3302; and (6) fraud.
Default was entered against Defendant on January 29, 2025.
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 January 21, 2025, Defendant’s agenet for
service of process, Judith Martinez, was served on November 29, 2024 at 741
East 12th Street, Los Angeles, California 90015 via substitute
service on an employee authorized to accept documents.
The Doe defendants were dismissed from the action on March
12, 2025, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request.
Plaintiff has filed a form CIV-100 seeking default judgment.
Sassan Masserat avers to Defendant’s non-military status.
Plaintiff provides a brief summary of the case in the
Declaration of Gavriel Sfaee.
Plaintiff adequately pleads its causes of action in the
Complaint, with the exception of the fraud claim.
The facts constituting the alleged fraud must be alleged
factually and specifically as to every element of fraud, as the policy of
“liberal construction” of the pleadings will not ordinarily be invoked. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12
Cal.4th 631, 645.) “[Fraud’s] particularity requirement necessitates pleading
facts which ‘show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the
representations were tendered.’ [Citation.]” (Stansfield v. Starkey
(1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 73.) “Less specificity is required when it appears
from the nature of the allegations that the defendant must necessarily possess
full information concerning the facts of the controversy.” (Wald v. TruSpeed
Motorcars, LLC (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 378, 394 [quotation marks omitted].)
To properly allege fraud against a corporation, the
plaintiffs must plead the names of the persons allegedly making the false
representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said
or wrote, and when it was said or written. (Tarmann
v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 157.)
Here, Plaintiff has not alleged the ‘where, when, and to
whom’ of the fraud in question, nor has it alleged the persons making the
representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said
or wrote, and when it was said or written.
“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’s CFO Gavriel Sfaee declares that Defendant owes
Plaintiff an outstanding amount of $196,811.80 and provides a compendium of the
statements that Plaintiff issued to Defendant. (Sfaee Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A.) The
Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately evidenced its principal damages.
Sfaee declares that Plaintiff issued 26 checks payable to
Plaintiff which were returned for insufficient funds and attaches a compendium
of the checks. (Sfaee Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. B.)
Civil
Code, section 1719 provides for the recovery of treble damages of $100 to
$1,500 per check returned for insufficient funds. (Civ. Code, § 1719, subd.
(a)(2).) The recipient of the check must first make a written demand for
payment of the amount of the check and service charges and provide the
defendant with at least 30 days to pay the amount of the check, the amount of
the service charges, and the cost to mail the demand. (Civ. Code, § 1719, subd.
(a)(2).)
Plaintiff
seeks the maximum penalty of $1,500 per returned check, in the total amount of
$39,000. The Court awards this amount.
Because Plaintiff does not seek punitive damages on default
judgment, and only seeks to recover the actual damages plus the penalties under
its claim for bounced checks, it does not appear that the failure of the fraud
claim affects Plaintiff’s damages. The Court is thus prepared to enter default
judgment in the amount requested.
The Complaint requests interest on the general damages. (Complaint
at 10:22-26.) The amount of principal damages is certain because it is laid out
in the Agreement and Statement of Account; pre-judgment interest is therefore
permissible here.
Plaintiff’s counsel Sassan Masserat provides Plaintiff’s
interest calculations, demonstrating that Plaintiff is entitled to $51,062.24
in interest. (Masserat Decl. ¶ 7, fn. 2.)
Plaintiff includes a memorandum of costs in the submitted
Form CIV-100, averring that it expended $507.79 in costs.
Plaintiff
does not seek attorney’s fees in its application for default judgment. However,
Plaintiff’s counsel declares that “[t]he Statements and Invoices attached to
the Complaint provide for recovery of legal fees incurred in litigation or collection
efforts, such fees will be sought after issuance of judgment.” (Masserat Decl.
¶ 7, fn. 1.)
If
Plaintiff intends to seek attorney’s fees on default judgment, it must do so in
its application for default judgment. Local Rule 3.214 provides for the default
schedule for attorney’s fees on default judgment. The Court is prepared to
grant the judgment as requested in the Form CIV-100, or is willing to continue
the hearing so that Plaintiff may resubmit its Form CIV-100 to request
attorney’s fees consistent with Local Rule 3.214.
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. 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.