Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 21PSCV00957, Date: 2025-05-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21PSCV00957 Hearing Date: May 9, 2025 Dept: 6
Plaintiffs
Valentin Munoz and Yesenia Munoz’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment
Defendant: Gerardo Munoz
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED. The Court will hear from Plaintiff’s counsel whether Plaintiff can in good faith amend the Complaint or a judgment should be entered in favor of Defendant Munoz.
BACKGROUND
This is a dispute regarding the payment of escrow funds. On November 19, 2021, plaintiffs Valentin Munoz and Yesenia Munoz (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed this action against defendant Selective Escrow, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, alleging one cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. On March 2, 2023, and May 25, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Doe amendment, substituting defendant Gerardo Munoz (Munoz) in place of Doe 1.
On April 28, 2025, Plaintiffs dismissed defendant Selective Escrow, Inc. with prejudice. On the same day, Plaintiffs filed a default judgment request.
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 Defendants in the total amount of $55,006.66, including $31,176.48 in damages, $23,395.18 in interest, and $435.00 in costs. The Court finds some problems with the default judgment request. First, the complaint lacks sufficient allegations to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against Munoz. The only thing the complaint alleges is that Munoz forwarded to Plaintiffs what turned out to be erroneous escrow instructions from Selective Escrow, Inc. (Compl., ¶ 11.) The complaint does not allege any facts demonstrating that Munoz knew or had reason to know the escrow instructions were erroneous. (See generally, Compl.; see Thomson v. Canyon (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 594, 607 [fiduciary duties of real estate agent include duties to obey instructions of the client and provide diligent and faithful service].) “[I]f the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint do not state any proper cause of action, the default judgment in the plaintiff's favor cannot stand.” (Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 282.)
Second, Plaintiff provided no documentary evidence to support the amount of damages requested. The declarations submitted are insufficient to prove damages. (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”]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subds. (a)(2), (a)(8).) While evidence of liability is not required in a default judgment request, proof of damages is still required. (Carlsen v. Koivumaki (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 879, 883-884.)
Third, Plaintiff provided no prejudgment interest calculation per Rule 3.1800, subdivision (a)(3), of the California Rules of Court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a)(3).)
Fourth, the Court finds Plaintiff’s statement that Munoz never served in the military and that he is now too old to be recruited to be insufficient. (CIV-100, ¶ 8, subd. (f); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a)(5).) Plaintiff provided no basis for that information other than to assert it in a conclusory manner.
Fifth, the complaint does not pray for recovery of costs. (Compl., p. 5 of pdf.)
CONCLUSION