Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV02621, Date: 2024-03-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV02621    Hearing Date: March 19, 2024    Dept: 6

Plaintiff Transportation Alliance Bank, Inc. dba TAB Bank’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment 

Defendant:  Diwan Transport, Inc., Baljit S Khinda, Narinder Singh, and Sukhraj Singh 

COURT RULING

            Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.           

BACKGROUND

            This is a breach of contract action. On August 25, 2023, plaintiff Transportation Alliance Bank, Inc. dba TAB Bank (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Diwan Transport, Inc., Baljit S Khinda, Narinder Singh, Sukhraj Singh (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 through 10, alleging causes of action for breach of contract, claim and delivery, conversion, and money lent. On November 22, 2023, default was entered against Defendants. On February 15, 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 $148,622.80, including $124,208.59 in damages, $6,708.85 in unpaid interest, $17,705.36 in late charges and other fees, $3,376.22 in attorney fees, and $1,132.06 in costs.[1] The Court finds there to be a few problems with Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment. First, Plaintiff did not complete item 2 on Form CIV-100. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a).) Second, it is not entirely clear how Plaintiff calculated the amount requested for default judgment. Plaintiff states that there is an unpaid principal balance of $124,208.59, but it is unclear how this amount was determined based on missed monthly payments of $5,923.47 beginning in March 2023. (See Bishop Decl., ¶¶ 8-15.) Plaintiff also provides little explanation as to how the interest charge was calculated, (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a)(3)), and how the late charges and other fees were calculated, and what the other fees are, (see Bishop Decl., ¶ 15). 

Third, federal law and/or the laws of the State of Utah appear to govern these agreements. (See Bishop Decl., Ex. 1, p. 5; Ex. 2, p. 2; Ex. 3, p. 5; Ex. 4, p. 2; Ex. 5, p. 2; Ex. 6, p. 2.) It is therefore unclear if the interest rates provided under these agreements comply with Federal or Utah usury law or are otherwise forbidden under California law. (See Mencor Enterprises, Inc., v. Hets Equities Corp. (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 432, 439-440 [“Under California law, the parties lack power to incorporate [other state’s] interest rate absent a determination that [other state], the state of the chosen law, has a relationship to the parties or the contract.”]) 

Fourth, Plaintiff did not provide any explanation for how it calculated its request for attorney fees. (See Form Civ-100, ¶ 7; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a)(9).) 

Finally, Plaintiff needs to either provide the original agreements or a declaration explaining why it submitted copies instead of the originals. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1806; Kahn v. Lasorda's Dugout, Inc. (2003) 109 CA4th 1118, 1122.)   

CONCLUSION

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.