Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV01544, Date: 2024-08-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23PSCV01544 Hearing Date: August 29, 2024 Dept: 6
Plaintiff
Investors Trust Realty Group, Inc.’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment
Defendants: Xiong Li and Long M. Chen
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
This is a commercial rental property dispute. On May 22, 2023, plaintiff Investors Trust Realty Group, Inc. (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Xiong Li, Long M. Chen (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 through 20, alleging causes of action for breach of contract, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, waste, and declaratory relief. On April 17, 2024, default was entered against Defendants. On August 13, 2024, Plaintiff submitted a default judgment package.
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 $4,251,880.36, including $4,251,880.36 in damages, $10,938.60 in interest, $11,160.00 in attorney fees, and $3,128.70 in costs. The Court finds multiple issues with Plaintiff’s default judgment package. First, Plaintiff’s damage request exceeds the amount demanded in the complaint. The only monetary damages specified in the complaint are $200,000.00. (Compl., ¶¶ 16, 23; Becker v. S.P.V. Constr. Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 489, 494 [“[A] prayer for damages according to proof passes muster under section 580 only if a specific amount of damages is alleged in the body of the complaint. [Citation.]”].) As for Plaintiff’s statement of damages, that is permissible only for Plaintiff’s punitive damages claim; Plaintiff’s other damages listed in its statement of damages are improper. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 425.11, 425.115; Dhawan v. Biring (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 963, 968 [service of a statement of damages in an action not involving personal injury or wrongful death does not satisfy Code Civ. Proc., § 580].) Thus, Plaintiff’s compensatory damages are limited to $200,000.00.
Second, for Plaintiff to recover punitive damages, Plaintiff must provide evidence showing that the punitive damages requested is not excessive in light of Defendants’ financial condition or ability to pay. (See Cummings Medical Corp v. Occupational Medical Corp. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1291, 1298.) Plaintiff does not provide any evidence of Defendant’s financial condition. The Court also notes that it is not inclined to award both punitive damages and treble damages. (Kanner v. Globe Bottling Co. (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 559, 568 [“whether the damages should be trebled is left to the court's discretion. [Citation.]”])
Third, the evidence Plaintiff has submitted does not fully support the amounts requested. Many of the cancelled checks submitted show Plaintiff paying itself. (E.g., Cirrito Decl., Ex. G, pp. 121-122, 126, 128.)
Finally, Plaintiff requests inconsistent amounts in different parts of its default judgment package. The request for entry of default judgment specifies $11,160.00 in attorney fees, (Request for Entry of Default Judgment, ¶ 2, subd. (e)), while the declarations of Michael Kim and Michael Cirrito state $13,388.70 in attorney fees and costs, (Kim Decl., ¶ 10; Cirrito Decl., ¶ 27, subd. (c).) The declaration of Michael Cirrito states $441,086.56 in treble damages, (Cirrito Decl., ¶ 27, subd. (d)), while the declaration of Michael Kim states $661,629.84 in treble damages, (Kim Decl., ¶ 13).
CONCLUSION