Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV02897, Date: 2024-11-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23PSCV02897 Hearing Date: November 14, 2024 Dept: 6
Plaintiff
Londo Welding, Inc. dba Welding Certification Center’s Request for Entry of Default
Judgment
Defendant: Adam Mason
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED. The Court hereby VACATES the entry of default on September 12, 2024. The Court will also discuss with counsel for Plaintiff at the hearing on this motion regarding whether this case should be reclassified as limited civil and transferred to the appropriate court.
BACKGROUND
This is a breach of contract case. On September 20, 2023, plaintiff Londo Welding, Inc. dba Welding Certification Center (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant Adam Mason (Defendant) and Does 1 through 50, alleging the sole cause of action for breach of written contract. On September 11, 2024, default was entered against Defendant. On October 15, 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 $13,850.13, including $11,124.23 in damages, $1002.11 in interest, $723.70 in attorney fees, and $1,000.09 in costs. The Court finds a few problems with the default judgment package. First, the amount of principal damages requested exceeds that stated in the complaint. The complaint alleges at most $10,000.00 in damages. (Compl., ¶¶ 13, 19.) “The purpose of [Code of Civil Procedure] section 580 is to require the plaintiff to provide notice of the maximum amount of the defendant's potential liability.” (Electronic Funds Solutions, LLC v. Murphy (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1174; see also 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]”.)
Second, Plaintiff attempts to include $3,608.41 in collection fees. (Malczynski Decl., p. 2; Londo Decl., ¶ 8.) While the underlying contract may provide for recovery of collection fees, those are items of damages that need the amounts purportedly incurred to be specifically alleged in the complaint in order to recover them in a default judgment; general allegations regarding collection fees will not suffice. (FAC, ¶¶ 11, 13, 16, 19; see Becker v. S.P.V. Constr. Co., supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 494.)
Third, the Court notes that the default should not have been entered on September 12, 2024. The first date of publication of the summons was July 31, 2024. (Proof of Publication (8/21/24).) Service was not effective until 28 days later on August 28, 2024. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.50, subd. (c); Gov. Code, § 6064; Watts v. Crawford (1995) 10 C4th 743, 747, fn. 4.) This means Defendant had until September 27, 2024, to respond to the complaint, i.e., 30 days after August 28, 2024. (Code Civ. Proc., § 412.20, subd. (a)(3) [defendant has 30 days after service is complete to respond to complaint].) The Court will vacate the default for having been improperly entered.
Fourth, Plaintiff did not provide a prejudgment interest calculation. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a)(3).)
Finally, given that the principal damage amount sought here is at most $10,000.00 and Plaintiff does not request injunctive relief, this matter appears to have been improperly filed with this Court. This is an unlimited jurisdiction court, and the jurisdictional limit for an unlimited civil case at the time this action was filed was $25,000.00. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 85, subd. (a) [limit changed to $35,000.00 effective January 1, 2024]; Stratton v. Beck (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 483, 492.) The Court also notes that this is not the first time this Plaintiff and the same counsel have filed this kind of action with this Court, which also involved an amount below the unlimited jurisdiction limit. (LASC Case No. 23PSCV00209.) The Court will hear from counsel for Plaintiff at the hearing on this default judgment request as to why this action should not be reclassified and transferred to the appropriate court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (a) [court may order reclassification on its own motion]; Stern v. Superior Ct. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 223, 230 [court contemplating reclassification must give notice to parties]; but see Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (e) [court not required to reclassify case merely because the judgment to be rendered after trial or hearing may fall below the unlimited jurisdiction limit].)
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED. The Court hereby VACATES the entry of default on September 12, 2024. The Court will also discuss with counsel for Plaintiff at the hearing on this motion regarding whether this case should be reclassified as limited civil and transferred to the appropriate court.