TENTATIVE RULING

Cross-Complainant Louis Correll’s Application for Default Judgment is CONTINUED to a date to be determined at hearing to allow Cross-Complainant to submit supplemental evidence as set forth below.

First, rule 3.1800(a)(7) requires a party seeking a default judgment to file a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought. Cross-Complainant has not filed a dismissal of the Doe defendants named in the cross-complaint.

Second, the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Local Rules, rule 3.214(a) sets forth the schedule one must follow when seeking attorney fees in a default judgment. Cross-Complainant’s request here does not comply with the schedule set forth in that rule.

Third, it is axiomatic that “[p]laintiffs in a default judgment proceeding must prove they are entitled to the damages claimed.” (Kim v. Westmore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 288.) While a default generally admits the allegations of the complaint, this does not relieve a plaintiff of a duty to establish causation and damages. (See Ostling v. Loring (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1731, 1745 [sufficiency of evidence supporting default is not reviewed only “as to matters for which no proof is required by virtue of the admission by default of the allegations of the complaint ... as to damages which, despite default, require proof the general rule does not apply”].) Cross-Complainant fails to sufficiently describe why he is entitled to $29,839 in damages. He sets forth the $34,449 he paid to complete the work, and he states that the total amount paid was $99,939, and the difference between the contract and the amount paid was $19,839, such that he appears entitled to $19,839 in damages, but he also seeks $10,000 for diminution in value of the pool due to the reduced size of what was constructed compared to the plans, but there is no evidence that Cross-Complainant lacked opportunity to construct the pool at the preferred size; rather, it would seem he made a choice to finish the work in a certain manner and now seeks to hold Cross-Defendant Keystone Remodeling, Inc. liable for that construction choice. Put simply, the nature of Cross-Complainant’s purported loss for the change in size of the pool is not clear to the Court.

Cross-Complainant shall either reduce the amount of damages sought, or he must explain why he is entitled to $10,000 in diminution of value damages. Cross-Complainant must also amend his request for attorney fees to comply with the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Local Rules, rule 3.214(a). Finally, Cross-Complainant must file a dismissal of Doe defendants before the default judgment can be granted.