Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 24PSCV00019, Date: 2025-05-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24PSCV00019 Hearing Date: May 21, 2025 Dept: 6
Plaintiff Xia Lu’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment
Defendant: Zhaoxiang Liu
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
This is a rental property dispute. On January 3, 2024, plaintiff Xia Lu (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Guiping Chen, Zhaoxiang Liu, and Does 1 to 20, alleging causes of action for nonpayment of rent, breach of lease agreement, fraud/intentional misrepresentation, waste, and damage to rental premises.
On November 19, 2024, the clerk entered default against defendants Guiping Chen and Zhaoxiang Liu.
On May 7, 2025, Plaintiff dismissed defendant Guiping Chen without prejudice.
On May 8, 2025, Plaintiff requested entry of default judgment against defendant Zhaoxiang Liu.
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 Defendant Liu in the total amount of $40,999.10, including $32,300.00 in damages, $8,000.00 in attorney fees, and $699.10 in costs. The Court finds multiple problems with Plaintiff’s default judgment request. First, Plaintiff provided no documentary evidence to support the amount of damages requested. (Code Civ. Proc., § 585, subd. (b) [“The court shall hear the evidence offered by the plaintiff, and shall render judgment in the plaintiff's favor for that relief, not exceeding the amount stated in the complaint… as appears by the evidence to be just”]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subds. (a)(2), (a)(8).) In the context of a request for court judgment by default, evidence to establish liability is not required since a defendant’s failure to answer the complaint admits the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint, and no further proof of liability is required. (Carlsen v. Koivumaki (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 879, 883.) However, proof of damages is still required. (Id. at p. 884.) Moreover, Plaintiff’s counsel declaration is insufficient to prove damages because it lacks foundation. Plaintiff’s counsel is not a percipient witness to the underlying events of this case and lacks personal knowledge to support the facts claimed in his declaration. (See generally, Deng. Decl.; see Evid. Code, § 702; Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 288 [declarations submitted in support of default judgment found to be “useless as evidence” where they were unintelligible and lacked foundation].)
Second, Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration that he has “no idea” regarding defendant Zhaoxiang Liu’s nonmilitary status is insufficient. (CIV-100, ¶ 8; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a)(5).) Plaintiff must undertake some effort to confirm defendant Zhaoxiang Liu’s military status.
Third, Plaintiff provided no calculation for the $8,000.00 attorney fees request. This amount greatly exceeds the amount permitted under Local Rule 3.214. (Super. Ct. L.A. County, Local Rules, rule 3.214.) It is also unclear on what basis Plaintiff is claiming attorney fees. (Compl., Prayer for Relief, ¶ 5; Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10).) If by contract, Plaintiff needs to provide direct evidence that the underlying contract had an attorney fee provision. (See Khajavi v. Feather River Anesthesia Med. Grp. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 32, 59 [attorney fees under oral contract denied due to lack of direct evidence].) It is not enough for Plaintiff to just allege entitlement to attorney fees. (Compl., Prayer for Relief, ¶ 5; Bear Creek Plan. Comm. v. Ferwerda (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1178, 1188 [“the party must still prove that the contract allows attorney fees. The mere allegation is not enough. [Citation.]”].) If by statute, it is unclear under what statute Plaintiff would be entitled to recover attorney fees here.
CONCLUSION