Judge Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case Number: 23PSCV00469, Date: 2023-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV00469, Date: 2023-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV00469 Hearing Date: May 17, 2024 Dept: 6

Plaintiff Arvest Bank dba Arvest Equipment Finance’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment

Defendants: Little Fat Trucking, Xing Wang

COURT RULING

The Court DENIES the request for entry of default judgment without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

This is a breach of contract case. On February 16, 2023, Plaintiff Arvest Bank dba Arvest Equipment Finance (Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendants Little Fat Trucking and Xing Wang (collectively, Defendants), alleging causes of action for breach of contract x 2, claim and delivery, conversion, breach of guaranty x 2, and money lent x 2. Default was entered against Little Fat Trucking on April 19, 2023 and against Xing Wang on June 30, 2023. Following the Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment without prejudice on October 18, 2023, Plaintiff resubmitted a request for entry of default judgment on March 11, 2024.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 585 permits entry of a default judgment after a party has filed 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 $232,051.83, including $203,030.34 in damages, $24,492.69 in interest, $3,920.30 in attorney fees, and $608.50 in costs. The Court still finds Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment contains some issues that need to be addressed. First, Plaintiff’s damage calculations do not properly account for the $84,100.00 credit acknowledgment derived from Plaintiff’s sale of the various items of collateral under the subject loan agreements. $251,766.10, i.e., the principal amount of damages demanded in the complaint, less the $84,100.00 credit acknowledgment equals $167,666.10, not the $203,030.34 that Plaintiff lists on item 2, subdivision (a), of Form CIV-100. (Request for Entry of Default, ¶ 2, subd. (a).) Plaintiff has therefore overstated its damage request by $48,735.76. This also means Plaintiff’s request for attorney fees is overstated. (See Silverman Decl., ¶ 4; Local Rule 3.214.)

Second, the Court also notes that Plaintiff’s principal damage demand in the complaint should have been lower, given that Plaintiff sold one of the items of collateral on January 17, 2023 for $31,000.00, i.e., one month before Plaintiff filed the complaint on February 16, 2023. (Dorsey Decl., ¶ 17.) While Plaintiff appears to have accounted for this difference with the $84,100.00 credit acknowledgment, the collateral sale should have been included in the complaint.

Third, as noted before, the subject loan agreements are governed by the laws of the State of Arkansas. (Dorsey Decl., Ex. A, ¶ 15; Id., Ex. G, ¶ 15.) It is unclear if the contractual interest rate in the applicable loan agreements, i.e., 7.74% and 7.23%, comply with Arkansas usury laws. (See Dorsey Decl., Exs. A, G.) If they are, the Court requests Plaintiff to provide the relevant legal authorities.

Finally, the default judgment package still does not comply with Rule 3.1806, as Plaintiff did not provide the original loan agreements or a declaration explaining why the originals could not be produced. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1806; Kahn v. Lasorda’s Dugout, Inc. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1118, 1123.)

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the request for entry of default judgment without prejudice.