Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 25STCV02723, Date: 2025-06-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25STCV02723    Hearing Date: June 9, 2025    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff BriteCap Financial, LLC (“Plaintiff”) seeks default judgment against Defendants Felix Hobby Shop, Inc., dba Taxman (“Felix”) and Richard Louis (“Louis”) (collectively, “Defendants”).

Plaintiff requests:

(1) money judgment in the amount of $72,384.07, consisting of:

(a) damages in the amount of $71,709.07; and

(b) costs in the amount of $675.00.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for default judgment.

Background

This case relates to a loan agreement.

Plaintiff is a California licensed lender. Felix is a business located in the state of Florida.

On September 18, 2024, Plaintiff and Felix entered into a loan agreement (the “Agreement”) whereby Plaintiff loaned Felix the sum of $67,045.10. The loan was to be repaid in periodic weekly payments of $1,153.83. The total repayment amount was to be $74,999.04. The Agreement stipulated to jurisdiction and venue in Los Angeles County, California and to the applicability of California law. Louis executed a personal guarantee of the loan.

On December 27, 2024, Defendants stopped making payments on the loan. The Agreement contains an acceleration clause whereby the entire repayment sum becomes due and payable in the event of default.

Plaintiff filed this action on January 31, 2025, raising claims for (1) common counts; (2) common counts; (3) common counts; (4) breach of contract (against Felix only); and (5) breach of contract (guaranty agreement) (against both Defendants).       

On April 25, 2025, default was entered against Louis.

On June 4, 2025, default was entered against Felix.

Legal Standard

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.

Discussion

Service of the Complaint and Summons

            According to the proof of service filed on April 1, 2025, Louis was personally served on March 25, 2025 at 1118 NW 19th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311.

            According to the proof of service filed on June 3, 2024, Felix was served on March 25, 2025 at 1118 NW 19th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311 via service on Louis, Felix’s authorized agent for service of process.

Dismissal of Other Parties

On June 4, 2025, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal of the Doe defendants. The Court hereby grants Plaintiff’s request.

Form CIV-100

Plaintiff has filed a form CIV-100 seeking default judgment.

Non-Military Status

Jon O. Blanda avers to Defendants’ non-military status.

Summary of the Case

Plaintiff provides a brief summary of the case in the declaration of Cary Thomas. Plaintiff adequately pleads its claims.

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.) 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.)

Cary Thomas avers that the outstanding loan amount is $71,709.07 and attaches a statement of account for the loan. (Thomas Decl. ¶ 7; Ex. 2 at p. 3.)

Plaintiff has adequately shown its damages.

Prejudgment Interest

Plaintiff does not seek prejudgment interest.

Memorandum of Costs and Disbursements

Plaintiff includes a memorandum of costs in the submitted Form CIV-100. Jon O. Blanda avers that Plaintiff expended $675.00 in costs.

Attorney’s Fees

            Plaintiff does not seek attorney’s fees.

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 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. 

Statement of Damages

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