Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV03267, Date: 2024-03-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23PSCV03267 Hearing Date: March 14, 2024 Dept: 6
Plaintiff
Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment
Defendant: Jessi P Changala
COURT RULING
Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
This is a collection case. On October 23, 2023, plaintiff Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant Jessi P Changala (Defendant) and Does 1 through 10, alleging one cause of action for breach of contract. On March 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default and 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) 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 $38,229.38, including $35,750.63 in damages, $0.00 in interest, $1,787.53 in attorney fees, and $581.22 in costs. The Court finds Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment contains some problems. First, the declaration of Daniel Johnston indicates that demand for payment of the balance owed was made more than 30 days before making the declaration, which was executed on June 7, 2023. (See generally, Johnston Decl.) However, the notice to Defendant is also dated June 7, 2023. (Salim Decl., Ex. A.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s contention that it made the demand more than 30 days before making the declaration is contradicted by the evidence. It is also frankly disconcerting that Plaintiff’s declaration in support of the request for entry of default judgment was executed before Plaintiff even filed this lawsuit.
Second, neither of the declarations submitted in support of the default judgment package provide any explanation regarding the basis for submitting a copy of the original loan agreement in lieu of the original. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1806; Kahn v. Lasorda’s Dugout, Inc. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1118, 1122.)
Third, the amount requested in attorney’s fees exceeds the amount permitted under Local Rule 3.214. (Local Rule 3.214.)
CONCLUSION