Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV03308, Date: 2024-05-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23PSCV03308 Hearing Date: May 20, 2024 Dept: 6
Plaintiff
SGV, LLC’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment
Defendant: Raul Castro
COURT RULING
Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
This is a breach of contract case. On October 25, 2023, plaintiff SGV, LLC (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant Raul Castro (Defendant) and Does 1 through 10, alleging causes of action for common counts, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. On January 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) against the Defendant and Does 1 through 10 for the same causes of action. On March 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of withdrawal of the FAC. On March 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default judgment package. Default was entered on the same day.
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 $36,296.14, including $28,473.00 in damages, $5,834.40 in interest, $1,244.19 in attorney fees, and $744.55 in costs. The Court finds some problems with Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment. First, the operative pleading here is the FAC, despite Plaintiff’s efforts to withdraw it. (Notice of Withdrawal of First Amended complaint (3/4/24).) When a plaintiff amends a complaint, the "amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and thereafter the original complaint performs no function as a pleading." (Darsie v. Darsie (1942) 49 Cal.App.2d 491, 493-494.) Indeed, an amended pleading supersedes the prior pleading. (Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 884.) Thus, the original complaint is now void, and cannot form the basis for Plaintiff’s default judgment request. (See Id.)
Second, Plaintiff has not filed a proof of service of the FAC on Defendant. It is therefore unclear if Plaintiff served the FAC on Defendant. It is also unclear how default was even entered without such proof of service. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1.21, subd. (b); Id., rule 3.110, subd. (b).) Although Plaintiff attempted to withdraw the FAC, it is not clear under what authority Plaintiff can do so on its own. Further, Plaintiff served the notice of withdrawal on Defendant, but it is unclear whether Plaintiff had ever served Defendant with the FAC. Plaintiff’s actions likely have left the Defendant confused. Since the FAC is still the operative pleading in the Court’s records, Plaintiff must serve Defendant with the FAC and give him 30 days to respond before a default can be entered on the operative FAC.
CONCLUSION