Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 23STCV12735, Date: 2023-10-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV12735    Hearing Date: October 23, 2023    Dept: 20

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kevin C. Brazile

Hearing Date:                         Monday, October 23, 2023

Case Name:                             1200 Management LLC v. Gianni Lee, et al.

Case No.:                                23STCV12735

Hearing:                                 OSC Re: Default Judgment

Notice:                                    OK

Ruling:                                    Plaintiff’s Request for Default Judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Plaintiff to give notice.

BACKGROUND

On June 5, 2023, Plaintiff 1200 Management LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint which did not state the names of the defendants, but the summons was directed to Defendants Gianni Lee, Aaron Ramey, and Alexander Gutierrez. The action was for recovery of COVID-19 rental debt as defined under Code of Civil Procedure section 1179.02.

On August 7, 2023, default was entered against Defendant Aaron Ramey.

On August 16, 2023, default was entered against Defendant Gianni Lee.

On September 14, 2023, the action was dismissed without prejudice, as to Defendant Alexander Gutierrez.

On September 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants Gianni Lee, Aaron Ramey, Alexander Gutierrez, and Mark Wrice. On the same day, Plaintiff filed a Request for Court Judgment against Defendants Gianni Lee and Aaron Ramey.

On October 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed the summons on the FAC as to Defendants Gianni Lee, Aaron Ramey, Alexander Gutierrez, and Mark Wrice.

            Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Request for Court Judgment.

DISCUSSION

            Code of Civil Procedure section 585 permits a default judgment after a defendant’s default has been entered. California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a) requires a party seeking default judgment by court judgment to use the mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Application to Enter Default) (form CIV-100) and to file: “(1) Except in unlawful detainer cases, a brief summary of the case identifying the parties and the nature of plaintiff's claim; (2) Declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3) Interest computations as necessary; (4) A memorandum of costs and disbursements; (5) A declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant against whom judgment is sought; (6) A proposed form of judgment; (7) A dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under Code of Civil Procedure section 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (8) Exhibits as necessary; and (9) A request for attorney fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties.”

            Plaintiff requests a total judgment of $31,312.77, consisting of damages in the amount of $21,325.00 as demanded in the complaint, interest in the amount of $2,660.67, costs in the amount of $1,362.10, and attorney fees in the amount of $5,965.00. (Form CIV-100, ¶¶ 2, 7; see also [Proposed] Judgment, ¶ 6 and Shy Decl., ¶¶ 2-7.) Plaintiff used mandatory form CIV-100 (which includes a declaration of nonmilitary status (¶ 8)) and complied with some of the other requirements of CRC, rule 3.1800(a). Plaintiff submitted a [Proposed] Judgment on Form JUD-100, and a declaration calculating the interest due on the past due rent, parking fees, and late fees at 10% from and after April 6, 2022. (Shy Decl. ¶ 6-7).

The Court notes that the FAC was filed after default was entered against Defendants Aaron Ramey and Gianni Lee. However, the amended complaint was not substantive as it only added additional exhibits and new defendants. “A defendant who is in default as to the original complaint is entitled to service of an amended pleading making a change of substance, as opposed to a change of form, and has a right to answer or demur thereto.” (Ford v. Superior Court (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 338, 342.)

‘It is settled by a long line of decisions that where, after the default of a defendant has been entered, a complaint is amended in matter of substance as distinguished from mere matter of form, the amendment opens the default and unless the amended pleading be served on the defaulting defendant, no judgment can properly be entered. (Citations omitted.) The reason for this rule is plain. A defendant is entitled to opportunity to be heard upon the allegations of the complaint on which judgment is sought against him. His default on the original complaint is limited in its effect to that complaint, and if by amendment a matter of substance is added he should be given the opportunity to contest the same before any judgment is given against him on account thereof.’

(Leo v. Dunlap (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 24, 27.)

However, Plaintiff’s request for default judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the following reason.

Plaintiff’s counsel has not properly requested fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 871.11, which provides: “(a) Notwithstanding any other law, in any action to recover COVID-19 rental debt, as defined in Section 1179.02, brought as a limited or unlimited civil case, the court shall not, under ordinary circumstances, award reasonable attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party that exceed the following amounts: (1) If the matter is uncontested, five hundred dollars ($500); (2) If the matter is contested, one thousand dollars ($1,000).” Here, Plaintiff’s counsel requests attorney fees which exceeds $500 by requesting $5,965.00.

Notwithstanding, the default judgment is denied for the foregoing reasons.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s Request for Default Judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Plaintiff to give notice.