Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 21PSCV00787, Date: 2024-09-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21PSCV00787    Hearing Date: September 26, 2024    Dept: 6

Plaintiff Jiajin Shi’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment 

Defendant: Huirong Dai 

COURT RULING           

            Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff should correct the deficiencies discussed above and resubmit the default judgment package prior to the OSC on September 26, 2024.           

BACKGROUND           

            This is a breach of contract case. On September 28, 2021, plaintiff Jiajin Shi (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant Huirong Dai (Defendant) and Does 1 through 50, alleging the sole cause of action for breach of contract. On January 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint, alleging the same cause of action for breach of contract against Defendant. 

            On February 20, 2024, default was entered against Defendant.[1] On June 13, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed the Doe Defendants. On July 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default judgment.           

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) declaration of nonmilitary status; (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 Defendant in the total amount of $15,371,639.48, including $15,370,324.43 in damages and $1,372.05 in costs. The Court finds three defects with Plaintiff’s default judgment package. First, Plaintiff’s declaration is dated July 14, 2022, which is prior to the operative First Amended Complaint being filed and prior to the default being entered. Second, Plaintiff did not attach a copy of the subject contract to his declaration, even though it is mentioned and referenced therein as Exhibit A. (See Shi Decl., ¶ 3.) Plaintiff’s declaration alone is not sufficient to prove damages. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 585, subd. (b) [“the court shall hear the evidence offered by the plaintiff and shall render judgment in the plaintiff’s favor for that relief, not exceeding the amount stated in the complaint… as appears by the evidence to be just.”]; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (8) [plaintiff must provide exhibits as necessary].) While liability is admitted on default, proof is still required to support the damages requested. (Carlsen v. Koivumaki (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 879, 898.) It is also not enough that a copy of the contract is attached to the First Amended Complaint since it is not authenticated. (Cf. 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].) 

Third, it is unclear exactly what Plaintiff means in the memorandum of costs regarding “Private Investigation Fee” for $499.00. (CIV-100, ¶ 7, subd. (d).) Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 does not clearly provide that as a recoverable cost. In fact, it is specifically not recoverable as a trial preparation cost. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subds. (b)(2), (b)(4).) If it was incurred to locate Defendant for purposes of effecting service of process, that would be permissible. (Id., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(4)(B).) The Court requests Plaintiff to provide further details on this charge when reapplying for default judgment. 

CONCLUSION 

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff should correct the deficiencies discussed above and resubmit the default judgment package prior to the OSC on September 26, 2024.