Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV00033, Date: 2024-09-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23PSCV00033 Hearing Date: September 26, 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 GRANTED in the reduced amount of $176,837.52. Prior to the hearing on September 26, 2024, Plaintiff can submit another Proposed Judgment reflecting the amounts and notes stated in this ruling.
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, which the Court subsequently denied without prejudice. On August 23, 2024, Plaintiff resubmitted the 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 $181,142.36, including $172,500.00 in damages, $3,664.77 in attorney fees, and $4,977.59 in costs. The Court finds Plaintiff’s resubmitted default judgment package addresses the problems set forth in the Court’s prior ruling. (Order re Tentative Ruling (7/29/24).) The Court notes, however, a couple of calculation errors with respect to attorney fees and costs. First, the correct amount of attorney fees in this matter is $3,615.00, as they are calculated based on the principal damages of $172,500.00. (See Local Rule 3.214.) Second, the $4,255.07 in law enforcement costs Plaintiff seeks are not recoverable as costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5.) The $4,255.07 in law enforcement costs Plaintiff seeks under the El Monte Municipal Code are actually damages, notwithstanding the language of “costs” contained in the statutory language. (See El Monte Municipal Code, §§ 1.19.020, 5.18.370.) For Plaintiff to recover these law enforcement costs, Plaintiff needed to have included them in the complaint as damages. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 580, subd. (a) [relief granted to a plaintiff upon entry of a defendant’s default cannot exceed the amount demanded in the complaint].) Accordingly, the Court will reduce Plaintiff’s cost award to $722.52.
Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for default judgment in the reduced amount of $176,837.52.
The Court notes that the Proposed Judgment submitted on August 23, 2024 is confusing and includes incorrect amount of costs and attorney’s fees. Further, the proposed Judgment must include a total amount of the Judgment. Plaintiff also submitted the form default judgment so the Court is not clear which Judgment Plaintiff wants the Court to sign.
CONCLUSION