Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV03804, Date: 2024-04-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23PSCV03804 Hearing Date: April 29, 2024 Dept: 6
Plaintiff
PFG Lending, LLC’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment
Defendants: Leonard S. Duenas and Alicia M. Leon
COURT’S RULING
BACKGROUND
This is a breach of contract case. On December 7, 2023, plaintiff PFG Lending, LLC dba Home Run Financing (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Leonard S. Duenas (Duenas), Alicia M. Leon (Leon) (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 to 5, alleging causes of action for breach of contract and common counts. On March 21, 2024, default was entered against Defendants. On the same date, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default judgment against Defendants.
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 $55,232.28, including $49,961.21 in damages, $2,730.24 in interest, $1,888.83 in attorney fees, and $652.00 in costs. The Court finds the request for entry of default judgment is deficient.
Pursuant to the agreement, Delaware law, and federal law to the extent applicable, governs the underlying loan agreement in this case. (Schulze Decl., Ex. A, pp. 8, 10.) “Where parties validly choose a state's law to govern their contractual rights and duties under section 187, that state's substantive law will govern the measure of recovery for a breach of contract. In turn, the measure of recovery includes a determination of whether plaintiff can recover interest, and, if so, the rate, upon damages awarded him for the period between the breach of contract and the rendition of judgment.” (Airs Aromatics, LLC v. CBL Data Recovery Technologies, Inc. (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 1009, 1014 [internal citations and quotations omitted].) Plaintiff fails to provide any Delaware authority showing that Plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest and that the interest calculation complies with Delaware law. (See Schulze Decl., ¶ 6; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a)(3); Airs Aromatics 50 Cal.App.5th at 1014 [New York choice-of-law clause governed recovery of prejudgment interest].)
CONCLUSION