Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 24PSCV00085, Date: 2024-05-30 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24PSCV00085 Hearing Date: May 30, 2024 Dept: 6
Plaintiff
Chalmers-Walnut, LLC’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment
Defendants: Luxy Custom Flooring, Inc., Mimi L. Lin, and All Unnamed Occupants of or in Use of the Premises
COURT RULING
Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
This is a commercial unlawful detainer action. On January 5, 2024, plaintiff Chalmers-Walnut, LLC (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Luxy Custom Flooring, Inc., Mimi L. Lin, All Unnamed Occupants of or in Use of the Premises (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 through 50, alleging the sole cause of action for unlawful detainer. On February 6, 2024, default was entered against the Defendants. On March 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default judgment.
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 $142,560.65, including $40,382.86 in past-due rent, $97,459.04 in holdover damages (i.e., 112 days from December 13, 2023 to April 2, 2024 x $870.17 per day), $4,002.50 in attorney fees, and $716.25 in costs. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s calculations contain some issues that need to be addressed. First, it is unclear how Plaintiff determined the principal amount of past-due rent. Plaintiff indicates that the initial amount of past-due rent at the time of serving the 3-Day Notice on December 8, 2023, was $60,996.20, comprised of base rent, late charges, and common area operating expenses (CAM) from October 1, 2023 through December 7, 2023. (Devling Decl., ¶¶ 16, Ex. 2.) But, the monthly rental rate at that time was $26,105.00. (Id., ¶ 10, Ex. 1.) Two months of unpaid rent based on that rate would be $52,210.00, leaving a difference of $8,786.20. Two months of CAM expenses of $870.00 would only add up to $1,740.00, (see Id., ¶ 11), which leaves a difference of $7,046.20. Two late charges of 10% would only add up to $5,221.00 (i.e., $2,610.50, 10% of $26,105.00, multiplied by 2), leaving a difference of $1,825.20. It is unclear to what extent the past-due rent is based on the month of December 2023, given that the rent was due on the 1st and the notice was served on December 8, 2023, and states that it includes amounts due through December 7, 2023. (See Id., ¶¶ 12-18.)
Second, it appears Plaintiff is attempting to include other past-due rents that have accrued before and/or after service of the 3-Day Notice. While Plaintiff acknowledges having received partial payments following service of the 3-Day Notice, (Devling Decl., ¶ 25), Plaintiff seeks to add $5,920.16 in undefined past-due CAM expenses for the whole year of 2023, not just the period between October 1, 2023 and December 7, 2023, as well as $2,610.00 in CAM expenses for an undefined period of time and an additional $7,831.50 in past-due rent for an undefined period of time. (See Id., ¶ 25, Ex. 2.) Some of this seems as though it may be duplicative of the amount sought in the 3-Day Notice and the daily holdover damages rate of $870.17 sought in the complaint and request for entry of default judgment. (Compl., Prayer for Relief, ¶¶ 2, 3; Request for Entry of Default Judgment (3/26/24), ¶ 2, subd. (g).) Any other damages, other than holdover damages, must be sought in a separate action for breach of contract. (See Hudec v. Robertson (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 1156, 1163.) Further, the Court will not allow for holdover damages that could have been avoided had Plaintiff requested a Clerk’s Judgment for possession only to recover possession of the premises and then a separate Court Judgment for money damages. This is particularly pertinent here where possession is not obtained because Plaintiff’s request for default judgment contains errors.
Third, Plaintiff’s request for attorney fees does not appear to consider Local Rule 3.214, which prescribes formulas for attorney fees calculations in default judgments. (Local Rule 3.214.) Also, the amount sought seems excessive for a default judgment. Moreover, the timesheet provided by Plaintiff’s counsel provides no explanation as to how it determined this amount, but instead provides only a lump sum without any explanation of hours expended or the hourly rate. (Taitelman Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. 1.) The timesheet also does not match the costs purportedly incurred, i.e., $1,070.01 instead of the $716.25 in costs requested. (See Id.)
CONCLUSION