Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 21PSCV00033, Date: 2024-07-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21PSCV00033 Hearing Date: July 29, 2024 Dept: 6
Plaintiff
City of El Monte’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment
Defendant: Zhilin Han
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
This is an abatement action. On January 13, 2021, plaintiff City of El Monte (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Chi Ian Ho (Ho), Zhilin Han (Han), and Does 1 through 100, alleging causes of action for violation of El Monte Municipal Code, violation of Unfair Competition Law, and violation of MAUCRSA.
On February 8, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed Ho from this action with prejudice.
On March 5, 2024, default was entered against Han. On May 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default judgment against Han.
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 declaration of nonmilitary status against each defendant whom default judgment is sought; (6) a proposed form of judgment; (7) 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; (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.)
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff seeks default judgment against Defendants in the total amount of $1,235,653.79, including $1,216,620.00 in damages, $0.00 in interest, $14,056.20 in attorney fees, and $4,977.59 in costs. The Court finds some issues with Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment, mainly regarding the damage calculations. Plaintiff’s damage calculations are comprised of $162,000.00 for the First Cause of Action for various violations of the El Monte Municipal Code, $0.00 for the Second Cause of Action based on Unfair Competition Law violations, and $1,054,620.00 for the Third Cause of Action for violations of the Medical Adult/Use Cannabis Regulation Safety Act (MAUCRSA). The $162,000.00 appears properly explained and accounted for, but the $1,054,620.00 conflicts with the amount demanded in the complaint. (Plaintiff’s Factual Summary, ¶¶ 30-35; Compl., p. 10, ¶ 11.) The complaint only prayed for $10,500.00 for the MAUCRSA violations on the Third Cause of Action. (Id.; see Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824 [“[I]n all default judgments the demand sets a ceiling on recovery.”]; see also Becker v. S.P.V. Constr. Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 489, 494 [prayer for damages in excess of $20,000 will not support a default judgment for more than that amount].) A default judgment is void when the damages are in excess of the damages specified in the complaint. (See Yeung v. Soos (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 576.) The trial court lacks jurisdiction to enter a judgment against a defaulting defendant which awards greater relief than that sought in the plaintiff’s complaint. (See In re Marriage of Lippel (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1160, 1167.)
The Court also notes some discrepancies in the Proposed Judgment submitted on the regular pleading form, i.e., the version not submitted on Form JUD-100. The Court notes that the proposed language therein mentions Defendants being jointly and severally obligated, but there is only one defendant in this action, i.e., Han. (See Proposed Judgment, ¶ 4; Request for Dismissal (2/8/24) [Defendant Ho]; Request for Dismissal (5/14/24) [Doe Defendants].) The other portions of the Proposed Judgment are addressed solely to Han, so it appears this may have been an inadvertent mistake. (See Proposed Judgment, ¶¶ 1-3.) As such, this language is potentially problematic and cannot be used.
CONCLUSION