Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 24PSCV00591, Date: 2024-07-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV00591    Hearing Date: July 17, 2024    Dept: 6

Plaintiff Tawa, Inc. (Retail)’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment 

Defendant: Liming Luo 

TENTATIVE RULING 

            Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.           

BACKGROUND           

            This is a commercial lease dispute. On February 26, 2024, plaintiff Tawa, Inc. (Retail)[1] (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant Liming Luo (Defendant) and Does 1 to 10, alleging causes of action for breach of contract – lease agreement, account stated, and book account. Default was entered against Defendant on June 4, 2024. Plaintiff requested entry of default judgment on June 13, 2024.           

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 Defendants in the total amount of $49,960.37, including $41,948.32 in damages, $5,838.29 in interest, $1,648.45 in attorney fees, and $525.31 in costs. The Court finds Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment has some issues. First, Form CIV-100 incorrectly indicated that it was requesting a clerk’s judgment, to which the clerk’s office sent a notice of rejection on June 25, 2024. (Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk’s Judgment (6/25/24).) Plaintiff should instead complete paragraph 1, subdivision (d), on Form CIV-100. Second, the amount stated in paragraph 2, subdivision (a), of Form CIV-100 does not match the amount stated in Exhibit 4. (Form CIV-100, ¶ 2, subd. (2)(a); Plaintiff’s Exhibits in Support of Request for Entry of Default Judgment, Ex. 4.) Third, Plaintiff did not provide a proposed judgment per Rule 3.1800, subdivision (a)(6), of the California Rules of Court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a)(6).) 

CONCLUSION           

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.