Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV02808, Date: 2024-11-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23PSCV02808 Hearing Date: November 6, 2024 Dept: 6
Plaintiff
Daimler Truck Financial Services USA LLC’s Request for Entry of Default
Judgment
Defendants: Little Fat Trucking, Xing Wang
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
This is a breach of contract case. On September 13, 2023, plaintiff Daimler Truck Financial Services USA LLC (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Little Fat Trucking (Trucking), Xing Wang (Wang), and Does 1 through 20, alleging causes of action for breach of contract, breach of guaranty, common count, claim & delivery, and conversion.
On September 19, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed the Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action for claim & delivery and conversion, respectively, and Does 1 through 20. On the same date, 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 $165,993.83, including $123,593.28 in damages, $1,700.00 in recovery fees, $34,192.95 in interest, $5,593.50 in attorney fees, and $910.00 in costs. The Court finds a few issues with the default judgment package. First, the $1,700.00 in recovery fees was not prayed for in the complaint. (See generally, Compl.) This purported damage arose after the filing of the complaint. (Guererro Decl., ¶ 20, Ex. 5.) Plaintiff’s damages are limited to those prayed for in the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 580, subd. (a).)
Second, Plaintiff presents conflicting evidence regarding whether the subject tractor was sold after it was repossessed. Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration states that the tractor was sold on June 5, 2024, that it is currently pending for sale at auction, and that it has not yet been sold. (Domin Decl., ¶¶ 7, 19.) Plaintiff’s representative, Mr. Guerrero, states that the tractor is currently pending sale at action. (Guerrero Decl., ¶ 19.) Plaintiff needs to clarify and correct these discrepancies.
Third, some of Plaintiff’s attorney fees calculations do not compute. With respect to attorney fees, the Court notes duplicate entries on Plaintiff’s counsel’s billing record submitted, specifically those dated May 20, 2024, August 27, 2024, and August 28, 2024, regarding a letter to the client requesting for sale of proceeds, deficiency balance, and invoices. (Domin Decl., Ex. 1, pp. 11, 12 of pdf.)
Fourth, it also appears to the Court that Plaintiff’s costs calculation is overstated with respect to process servers. The proofs of service filed on March 11, 2024, only indicate $50.00 for each service, for a total of $100.00, not the $299.00 Plaintiff claims here. (Proofs of Service (3/11/24); Domin Decl., ¶ 6.) The invoice Plaintiff’s counsel submitted also only shows two process server fees of $99.95, which is about $100.00 less than the $299.00 claimed. (Domin Decl., Ex. 1, p. 13 of pdf.) Even then, it is still unclear where the $99.95 comes from when looking at the proofs of service filed on March 11, 2024.
Fifth, Plaintiff’s prejudgment interest calculation is overstated by one day. The number of days between March 15, 2023, and September 25, 2024, is 560, not 561. (Guerrero Decl., ¶ 18.)
Finally, Plaintiff did not submit the original agreement or a declaration explaining why a copy was submitted in lieu of the original. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1806; Kahn v. Lasorda’s Dugout, Inc. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1118, 1123.)
CONCLUSION