Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV02752, Date: 2024-03-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV02752    Hearing Date: March 15, 2024    Dept: 6

Plaintiff DHL Express (USA), Inc.’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment 

Defendants: DS Life Tree, Inc., a corporation, and Jiahui David Shen, an individual aka David Shen 

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $70,334.52. Alternatively, Plaintiff may submit a revised prejudgment interest calculation based on Florida law.      

            If Plaintiff accepts the reduced amount, Plaintiff shall submit a new Proposed Judgment with the reduced amount.   

BACKGROUND

            This is a breach of contract action. On September 8, 2023, plaintiff DHL Express (USA), Inc. (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants DS Life Tree, Inc. (Life Tree), a corporation, Jiahui David Shen, an individual aka David Shen (Shen) (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 to 100, alleging causes of action for breach of contract and breach of personal guarantee. Default was entered against Life Tree on January 2, 2024, and against Shen on February 1, 2024. Plaintiff submitted a default judgment package on February 1, 2024.           

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 $79,428.14, including $69,730.46 in damages, $9,093.62 in interest, $0.00 in attorney fees, and $604.06 in costs. The Court finds Plaintiff’s default judgment package is otherwise in order, except for the prejudgment interest calculation. The laws of the State of Florida govern the contract here. (Compl., Ex. 1, ¶ 7.) This means the governing law for purposes of prejudgment interest is Florida law. (Airs Aromatics, LLC v. CBL Data Recovery Technologies Inc. (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 1009, 1014 [New York choice-of-law clause governed recovery of prejudgment interest].) Plaintiff’s calculation does not specify which state’s laws it applied in calculating prejudgment interest here, but it appears it is based on the 10% interest rate under California law. (See Gaba Decl., ¶¶ 3-4; Civ. Code, § 3289, subd. (b).) If Plaintiff wishes to recover prejudgment interest in this matter, Plaintiff may submit a new declaration containing a prejudgment interest calculation under Florida law. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a)(3).) Otherwise, the Court will disregard Plaintiff’s prejudgment interest calculation, and grant default judgment in the reduced amount of $70,334.52. 

CONCLUSION

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $70,334.52. Alternatively, Plaintiff may submit a revised prejudgment interest calculation based on Florida law. 

            If Plaintiff accepts the reduced amount, Plaintiff shall submit a new Proposed Judgment with the reduced amount.