Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV02810, Date: 2024-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV02810    Hearing Date: March 7, 2024    Dept: 6

Plaintiff Tricia Liu’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment 

Defendant: Louie Angel David Feria 

TENTATIVE RULING           

            Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice to Plaintiff seeking to recover damages in a separate civil action.           

BACKGROUND           

            This is an unlawful detainer action. On September 14, 2023, plaintiff Tricia Liu (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant Louie Angel David Feria (Defendant) for unlawful detainer. On November 29, 2023, Plaintiff obtained a default judgment for possession. On February 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed a request for Court default judgment seeking monetary damages.         

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 Defendant in the total amount of $60,247, comprised of $45,667 in holdover damages and $14,580 for repair costs. The Court finds multiple problems with Plaintiff’s request for entry of court default judgment. First, Plaintiff did not submit a proposed form of judgment or a memorandum of costs and disbursements. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subds. (a)(4), (a)(6).) Second, Plaintiff’s declaration references a written lease agreement between the parties, but no copy of the lease agreement is attached to Plaintiff’s declaration or the complaint. (See Liu Decl., ¶ 4; see generally, Compl; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subdivision (a)(8) [required documents for default judgment packages include “[e]xhibits as necessary”].) 

Third, the purported Notice(s) to Pay Rent or Quit do not comply with Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161(2) in that it does not state the name, telephone number, and address of the person to whom the rent payment shall be made, and, if payment may be made personally, the usual days and hours that person will be available to receive the payment. (See Compl., Exs. EE-1 and EE-2; Civ. Proc. Code § 1161(2).) Moreover, the Complaint alleges that the Notice period expired on April 8, 2023 and that the Notice was personally served on April 8, 2023, and a copy posted on the premises and also left with Louie Angel David Feria on April 7, 2023 and April 10, 2023. (Compl., ¶¶ 9.b., 10.a.), but the Certificate of Service only indicates that the Notice was mailed on April 7, 2023, which alone is not proper service under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1162(b). (See Compl., ¶ 9.b.(1) and Ex. EE-1; see also Civ. Proc. Code § 1162(b)(1)-(3).) Further, the Declaration states that the Notice expired on August 6, 2023 and was served by posting and mailing on August 3, 2023. (Liu Decl.,  ¶¶ 9, 7.) However, the Proof of Service, signed on February 5, 2024, shows only that the Notice was mailed on August 3, 2023, which alone is not proper service. (Liu Decl., Ex. 8b; see also Civ. Proc. Code § 1162(b)(1)-(3).) 

Fourth, Plaintiff’s damage calculations do not add up. Plaintiff calculates holdover damages in the amount of $45,667 beginning from April 1, 2023 through January 10, 2024. (Liu Decl., ¶ 12.) However, the second notice to pay or quit that Plaintiff purportedly served on Defendant indicates that it covers $16,000 for the period between April 1, 2023 and July 25, 2023. (Liu Decl., Ex. EE-2.) Thus, the $16,000 is past due rent, not holdover damages. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1161, subd. (2); ¶ 8:58.1, B. Unlawful Detainer Complaint, Cal. Prac. Guide Landlord-Tenant Ch. 8-B [“The amount of ‘rent’ recoverable is limited to rent accruing from the tenant’s last payment… through the current period covered by the three-day notice.”]) However, the $16,000 in past due rent also conflicts with the Eviction Notice served on April 7, 2023 and paragraph 12 of the complaint which says the amount of rent due at the time the notice to pay rent or quit was served was $1,333. (See Compl., ¶ 12 and Ex. EE-1; Liu Decl., Ex. EE-2.) 

Fifth, without a copy of the written lease agreement, the Court is unable to confirm whether the rental rate Plaintiff claims is correct. Plaintiff also inconsistently claims that the fair value of the rental premises is $133 per day in the complaint, (Compl., ¶ 13), but then claims in the declaration that it is $160.23 per day, (Liu Decl., 10.)[1] Additionally, Plaintiff claims the notice of termination somehow constituted a notice of future rent increase beginning May 1, 2023. (Liu Decl., Ex. 5d.) 

Finally, the $14,580 Plaintiff seeks in repair costs is beyond the scope of an unlawful detainer action. (See Liu Decl., Ex. 15a, subd. (5); Civ. Code, § 1952, subd. (b); ¶ 8:87, B. Unlawful Detainer Complaint, Cal. Prac. Guide Landlord-Tenant Ch. 8-B [landlord relief limited to judgment awarding possession, forfeiture of the lease, unpaid rent, and holdover damages].) 

CONCLUSION 

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has not established that she has satisfied the requirements to prove a cause of action for unlawful detainer and that she is entitled to the damages requested. Accordingly, the request for entry of a Court default judgment for damages is DENIED without prejudice to Plaintiff seeking to recover damages in a separate civil action.