Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 19PSCV01011, Date: 2024-01-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19PSCV01011    Hearing Date: January 29, 2024    Dept: 6

Plaintiffs Morris J. Ndugire and Gladys Moraa Ndugire’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment 

Defendants:  Tulio Cardona, Cardona Realty, and Emporium Financial Group 

STATEMENT OF DECISION

            Plaintiffs’ request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiffs can resubmit the default judgment package prior to the hearing.          

BACKGROUND

            This action is a real estate dispute. On November 8, 2019, plaintiffs Morris J. Ndugire and Gladys Moraa Ndugire (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed this action against defendants Tulio Cardona, Cardona Realty, Emporium Financial Group, Franklin Ramirez, and Does 1 through 10, alleging causes of action for non-disclosure of material facts, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On July 1, 2020, default was entered against defendants Tulio Cardona, Cardona Realty, and Emporium Financial Group (collectively, the Defaulted Defendants). Plaintiffs subsequently dismissed Franklin Ramirez and Does 1 through 10 from this action. On March 7, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ default judgment requested against the Defaulted Defendants without prejudice. On March 22, 2023, the Court again denied Plaintiffs’ default judgment requested against the Defaulted Defendants without prejudice. On November 27, 2023, Plaintiffs submitted another request for entry of default judgment against the Defaulted Defendants.           

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 585 permits entry of a default judgment after a party has failed to timely respond or appear. (Code Civ. Proc., § 585.) A party seeking judgment on the default by the court must file a Request for Court Judgment, and: (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 or an application for separate judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (7) exhibits as necessary; and (8) a request for attorneys’ fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800.) 

ANALYSIS

Plaintiffs seek default judgment against the Defaulted Defendants in the total amount of $17,000, comprised solely of $17,000.00 in damages. The Court must deny Plaintiffs’ request for default judgment yet again. Plaintiffs did not submit Form CIV-100 with their default judgment package, which is mandatory per Rule 3.1800, subdivision (a) of the California Rules of Court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a).) The Court further notes that Plaintiffs did not authenticate or lay the foundation for the contract evidencing the underlying $17,000.00 payment. (See Statement of Damages, pp. 34-35 of attachment; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subds. (a)(2), (a)(8); Code Civ. Proc., § 585, subd. (d); Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 288 [declarations found to be “useless as evidence” where they were unintelligible and lacked foundation].) Without such authentication or foundation, Plaintiffs have not submitted sufficient evidence to support this request for entry of default judgment. The Court also notes that the Declaration of Ramon G. Barredo is not executed under penalty of perjury per Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2015.5.) 

            Furthermore, the proposed judgment lists the total amount as $17,000.00. (JUD-100, § 6, subd. (a).) However, the proposed judgment also includes a statement under Section 7 “Other” that reads “General Damages for Inconvenience in a reasonable amount for the [sic] Mr. and Mrs. Ndugire for consideration of the Court.” (Id., § 7.) This is improper for multiple reasons. First, Plaintiffs must specify their damages in Section 6 of the proposed judgment. Second, Plaintiffs cannot request open-ended relief like this on a default judgment. They need to have given Defendants notice of both the type and amount of damages sought before entry of default, and then they must produce evidence of such damages. (See Sass v. Cohen (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 1032, 1041 [due process limits relief to the type and amount sought in the complaint]; see also Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 288 [default judgment requires proof of damages].) Additionally, Plaintiffs’ Statement of Damages is of no benefit here because this is neither a personal injury action nor wrongful death action, nor are Plaintiffs seeking punitive damages. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.11, subds. (b), (c); Id., § 425.115, subd. (f)). It is also of no benefit because Plaintiffs did not serve the Statement of Damages on Defendants before entry of default on July 1, 2020. (See Statement of Damages (12/4/23); Code Civ. Proc., § 425.11, subd. (c); Id. 425.115, subd. (f).)[1] 

CONCLUSION

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs' request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiffs can resubmit the default judgment package prior to the hearing.