Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV00209, Date: 2024-03-15 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23PSCV00209 Hearing Date: March 15, 2024 Dept: 6
Plaintiff Welding Certification Center’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment
Defendants: Carlos Ramirez and Felipe DeJesus Ramirez Garcia
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
This is a breach of contract action. On January 24, 2023, plaintiff Welding Certification Center (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Carlos Ramirez (Ramirez), Felipe DeJesus Ramirez Garcia (Garcia) (collectively, Defendants) and Does 1 to 50, alleging one cause of action for breach of written contract. On June 20, 2023, default was entered against Ramirez. On October 26, 2023, default was entered against Garcia. On March 11, 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) 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
Plaintiff seeks default judgment against Defendants in the total amount of $19,617.10, including $11,649.00 in damages, $2,718.10 in interest, $5,250.00 in attorney fees, and $0.00 costs. The Court finds multiple problems with Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment. First, Plaintiff did not provide a copy of the original loan agreement at issue or a declaration in lieu of the original explaining why the original could not be produced. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1806; Kahn v. Lasorda's Dugout, Inc. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1118, 1122.) Second, it is not sufficiently clear how Plaintiff calculated its request for prejudgment interest. (Londo Decl., ¶ 7; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a)(3).) Third, Plaintiff’s supporting declaration fails to adequately explain or provide justification for $5,250.00 in attorney fees when the maximum recovery here would otherwise be $739.47 per Local Rule 3.214. (Londo Decl., ¶ 8; Local Rule 3.214.)
CONCLUSION