Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 24PSCV01059, Date: 2025-05-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24PSCV01059 Hearing Date: May 28, 2025 Dept: 6
Plaintiff Financial Pacific Leasing, Inc.’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment
Defendant: A.R.D. Marketing, Inc.
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $152,525.85. The Court directs Plaintiff to submit a revised proposed judgment reflecting the reduced amount for the Court’s review and signature, prior to the May 28, 2025 hearing.
BACKGROUND
This is a breach of finance agreement action. On April 4, 2024, plaintiff Financial Pacific Leasing, Inc. (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants A.R.D. Marketing, Inc. (A.R.D.), Gregory A. Peplin (Peplin) (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 through 10, alleging causes of action for breach of equipment finance agreement, breach of guaranty, account stated, and claim and delivery.
On January 7, 2025, Plaintiff dismissed Defendant Peplin from this action without prejudice.
On April 8, 2025, the clerk entered default against A.R.D.
On April 24, 2025, Plaintiff submitted 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) 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 $152,584.84, including $119,621.00 in damages, $29,318.03 in interest, $3,086.21 in attorney fees, and $559.60 in costs. The Court finds most things in order here, but notes that the prejudgment calculation is overstated by one day. The number of days between December 15, 2023 and April 24, 2025, is 496 days, not 497 as Plaintiff calculated. (Decl. re Method of Calculating Interest, ¶ 2.) Thus, assuming the 18% prejudgment interest rate is permissible under Washington law which governs the agreement, the correct amount of prejudgment interest would be $29,259.04, i.e., 496 days x $58.99 per day.
CONCLUSION