Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV01493, Date: 2023-10-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV01493    Hearing Date: December 13, 2023    Dept: 6

Plaintiff Amur Equipment Finance, Inc.’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment 

Defendant: Daniel Ferrer Hernandez, an Individual dba DFH Services 

TENTATIVE RULING

DENIED without prejudice. 

BACKGROUND

This is a collection action. On May 17, 2023, Plaintiff Amur Equipment Finance, Inc. (Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendant Daniel Ferrer Hernandez, an Individual dba DFH Services (Defendant) and Does 1 through 100, alleging causes of action for breach of written agreement, open book account, and account stated. Default was entered against Defendant on September 5, 2023. Plaintiff previously submitted a default judgment package on September 8, 2023, which was denied without prejudice on October 16, 2023. Plaintiff submitted a default judgment package again on October 20, 2023.

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 $46,929.32, including $42,816.64 in damages, $3,601.28 in interest, $0.00 in attorney’s fees, and $511.40 in costs. The Court finds that while Plaintiff has addressed a number of issues noted in the Court’s October 16, 2023 order, Plaintiff still has not explained whether the 10% prejudgment interest rate calculation complies with Nebraska law, which is the governing law of the underlying contract at issue. (See Order Re: Tentative Ruling (10/16/23).). Plaintiff should also submit a proposed order accepting a copy of the original loan agreement in lieu of the original. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff can submit the additional documents discussed herein prior to the next hearing and the Court will review the default judgment package again. If the default judgment is then entered prior to the 12/13/23 OSC hearing, no appearance will be required and the hearing will go off-calendar.