Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 24PSCV01565, Date: 2024-10-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24PSCV01565 Hearing Date: October 3, 2024 Dept: 6
Plaintiff
Ford Motor Credit Company’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment
Defendant: Arturo Solis
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
This is a breach of contract case. On May 16, 2024, plaintiff Ford Motor Credit Company (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant Arturo Solis (Defendant) and Does 1 through 10, alleging the sole cause of action for breach of contract. On August 28, 2024, Plaintiff requested entry of default and default judgment against Defendant.
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 $112,418.53, including $93,102.52 in damages, $16,047.30 in interest, $2,754.71 in attorney fees, and $514.00 in costs. The Court finds Plaintiff’s default judgment package is otherwise in order, except that Plaintiff, as assignee of the original finance agreement from Bluesky Diversified Inc., did not submit the request for entry of default judgment on Judicial Council Form CIV-105, as required by Rule 3.1800, subdivision (a), of the California Rules of Court. (Request for Entry of Default Judgment (8/28/24); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a).) The Court also notes that the declaration of George Galvez is ambiguous as to whether the copy of the contract submitted is an original or a copy of the subject finance agreement. (Galvez Decl., ¶ 1 [“All of the documents attached hereto are originals, or unaltered copies…”].) If the original finance agreement is not attached, Plaintiff needs to explain why the original could not be produced. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1806; Kahn v. Lasorda’s Dugout, Inc. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1118, 1123.) The Court also finds the attorney fees calculation to be slightly excessive. The correct amount based on principal damages of $93,102.52 would be $2,752.05, not $2,754.71 as requested. (Local Rule 3.214.)
CONCLUSION