Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV03784, Date: 2025-06-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV03784    Hearing Date: June 12, 2025    Dept: C

HAMIDREZA REZAEI v. ALEX FONSECA

CASE NO.:  23NWCV03784 

HEARING:  06/12/25 @ 8:30 a.m.

#2

TENTATIVE ORDER

DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.  

Background

On November 27, 2023, Plaintiff Hamidreza Rezaei filed a Complaint against Defendant Alex Fonseca and Does 1 through 20 for: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Fraud; (3) Embezzlement; (4) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (5) Common Counts; (6) Declaratory Relief; and (7) Unfair Business Practices. This action arises out of an alleged breach of contract for a vehicle purchase.

On April 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant default judgment package.

The Court entered default against Defendant on April 21, 2025. On April 25, 2025, the Court continued the hearing to May 27, 2025. On that date, the Court continued the hearing to June 12, 2025.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure § 585 permits entry of a judgment after a Defendant fails to timely answer following proper service of process. A party seeking judgment on the default by the Court must file a Request for Court Judgment, and provide: (1) a brief summary of the case; (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 proposed form of judgment; (6) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought; (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under CCP § 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (8) exhibits as necessary; and (9) a request for attorneys’ fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800.)

Discussion

Plaintiff requests default judgment against Defendant Alex Fonseca in the total amount of $172,000.00. For the following reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff’s application.

First, the Court does not see proof of service that the statement of damages was served on Defendant or that it was served prior to the default entered against Defendant on April 21, 2025. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.11, subd. (c).) Plaintiff’s Statement of Damages claims $4,870.00 for money owed under contract, including 10% accrued interest charges; $17,540.00 for identity theft, embezzlement, and forgery; and $149,590.00 for malicious accusation, loss of wages, and damages to business. (Statement of Damages.) A statement of damages is the functional equivalent to an amendment to a complaint that increases the amount of damages sought. (Plotitsa v. Superior Court (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 755, 759.) Default cannot be entered until 30 days after the statement of damages was served. (Id. at p.761; but see Schwab v. Rondel Homes, Inc. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 428, 435 [“A defendant is entitled to actual notice of the liability to which he or she may be subjected, a reasonable period of time before default may be entered”].) Default judgment is void if the defendant was not served with the required statement of damages before the default was entered. (Yu v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 1024, 1031.)

Second, Item 5, on Form CIV-100 is incomplete.

Third, Plaintiff did not submit a declaration or sufficient evidence to prove up the requested damages. Plaintiff must submit a declaration under penalty of perjury with admissible evidence in support of the amount of damages sought pursuant to CRC 3.1800(a)(2). A defaulting defendant admits only the well pled facts concerning liability, not damages–Plaintiffs must still introduce admissible prima facie evidence of damages. (See Johnson v. Stanhiser (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 357, 361.) The Court will not grant any unsupported, speculative, or unsubstantiated requests for damages.

Fourth, Plaintiff did not provide an interest calculation despite requesting prejudgment interest on Form JUD-100 and on the Statement of Damages. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a)(3).)

Fifth, Plaintiff did not submit a case summary. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a)(1).)

Based on the foregoing, the request for default judgment is DENIED.