TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Evan Richter’s Application for Default Judgment is CONTINUED to a date TBD to allow Plaintiff to submit supplemental evidence as set forth below.

First, the amount sought for damage sustained to the property exceeds the amount set forth in the complaint. Code of Civil Procedure section 580, subdivision (a), provides that “[t]he relief granted to the plaintiff, if there is no answer, cannot exceed that demanded in the complaint.” Plaintiff must either reduce the request to align with the complaint, or he must amend the complaint to seek more damages.

Second, it is not clear how Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney fees under the lease when the provision for attorney fees allows for recovery by the owner, who is identified in the agreement as FurnishedlivingLA.com. (Richter Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 1.) Whether Plaintiff is the actual owner is of no consequence where the agreement provided for the recovery of fees only by FurnishedlivingLA.com. Plaintiff must provide case law showing that he is entitled to recover such fees, or he must omit the request for attorney fees from his default judgment request.

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”].) Plaintiff fails to sufficiently substantiate why he is entitled to $36,627.86 in damages. He provides only statements of the damage sustained, not that any costs were actually paid. Plaintiff must provide evidence of paying such costs before the Court can award him the requested amount.

Finally, the declaration of nonmilitary status was executed more than a year ago. The Court requires an updated declaration of nonmilitary status per rule 3.1800(a)(5) of the California Rules of Court.