TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Mikel Rastegar’s Application for Default Judgment is CONTINUED to a date to be determined at hearing to allow Plaintiff to submit supplemental evidence as set forth below.

First, the Court previously stated that “an attorney who chooses to litigate in propria persona and therefore does not pay or become liable to pay consideration in exchange for legal representation” cannot recover attorney fees. (Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274, 292.) Plaintiff is an attorney litigating in propria persona; thus, Plaintiff cannot recover attorney fees. Plaintiff must submit a new CIV-100 form and JUD-100 proposed judgment form omitting any request for attorney fees.

Second, it is now unclear whether Plaintiff seeks to recover costs he incurred in litigating this action, as he states in his supplemental declaration that he seeks “the sum of $19,214.21 which represents the damage [he] sustained from Defendant.” (Rastegar Decl. ¶ 19.) Plaintiff must submit a new CIV-100 form and JUD-100 proposed judgment form in line with the request made in his supplemental declaration.

Third, the Court previously stated that Plaintiff had failed to provide evidence of payment, i.e., the copies of checks he wrote is insufficient because he fails to show that payment was actually made, for example, with evidence that the checks were endorsed by Defendants. Plaintiff has again failed to submit any such evidence, providing only copies of the checks he wrote to Defendants.