Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 24PSCV01393, Date: 2024-09-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24PSCV01393 Hearing Date: September 18, 2024 Dept: 6
Plaintiff Benik, LLC’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment
Defendants: Bespoke Group, Inc., and all other tenants, subtenants, and occupants in possession
COURT RULING
Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
This is a commercial unlawful detainer action. On May 1, 2024, plaintiff Benik, LLC (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant Bespoke Group, Inc. (Defendant) and Does 1 to 20, alleging the sole cause of action for unlawful detainer. On May 21, 2024, default was entered against Defendant and all other tenants, subtenants, and occupants in possession. On June 27, 2024, Plaintiff requested 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 Defendant in the total amount of $391,597.71, including $67,169.72 in past-due rent, $97,314.56 in holdover damages, $1,115.84 in costs, and $225,997.59 in other damages. The Court finds Plaintiff’s default judgment package has some issues.
First, Plaintiff’s holdover damages calculation is excessive. Holdover damages start from the day after the notice to quit period ends. (CACI 4340.) The Complaint alleges the notice period expired April 24, 2024. (Compl., ¶ 9.b.(1).) Thus, the calculations should begin April 25, 2024, not April 19, 2024. (UD-116, ¶ 12, subd. (c); Summary of Case, p. 2:13-14.)
Second, Plaintiff’s “other” damage calculation includes future rent and broker commissions, which are improper here. (UD-116, ¶ 24, subd. (b); Summary of Case, pp. 4-5.) “It is well settled that damages allowed in unlawful detainer proceedings are only those which result from the unlawful detention and accrue during that time. [Citation.]” (Vasey v. California Dance Co. (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 742, 748, italics in original.) “[T]he award of damages for breaches of the lease occurring before the unlawful detainer [citation] and of ‘future damages’ for continued unlawful possession beyond the date of the judgment until such time as possession is returned to the landlord are not permitted in unlawful detainer.” (Hudec v. Robertson (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 1156, 1163.) It is unclear if Plaintiff can even recover the $39,800 in free rent as past-due rent here since that arguably was not considered unpaid until a breach occurred. (See Compl., Ex. 1, ¶ 52; UD-116, ¶ 24, subd. (a); Summary of Case, p. 3.) If Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid rent for the remainder of the lease term or other remedies provided under the contract, such as the broker commissions or free rent, Plaintiff may pursue such matters in a separate civil action. (Vasey v. California Dance Co., supra, 70 Cal.App.3d at p. 748 fn. 2.)
Finally, a default judgment for monetary damages can only be sought against the defendant. A default judgment for possession only may include all tenants, subtenants and occupants. (Civ. Proc. Code §§ 715.010, 1169.)
CONCLUSION