Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 24PSCV01768, Date: 2025-04-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24PSCV01768 Hearing Date: April 7, 2025 Dept: 6
Plaintiff
Golden Arch Properties LP’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment
Defendant: Mobile World Logistics, LLC
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff may submit a corrected default judgment package before the hearing on this matter. If the corrected default judgment package is accepted, the hearing will come off calendar and the Court will sign the proposed judgment.
BACKGROUND
This is a commercial unlawful detainer action. On May 28, 2024, plaintiff Golden Arch Properties LP (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant Mobile World Logistics, LLC, a Ca. Ltd Liab. Co. (Defendant) and Does 1 to 10, alleging the sole cause of action for unlawful detainer.
On September 9, 2024, default was entered against Defendant.
On September 10, 2024, Plaintiff obtained a clerk’s judgment for possession.
On February 4, 2024, Plaintiff requested entry of a monetary 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 $83,551.04, including $54,584.63 in past-due rent, $23,464.60 in holdover damages, $4,772.95 in attorney fees, and $728.86 in costs. The Court finds a few issues with the default judgment package. First, it is unclear to the Court why the base rent suddenly increased from $4,950.00 a month to $6,121.27 a month, as there is no language in the lease agreement providing for that increase, nor does Plaintiff’s declaration indicate there was an amendment to the lease providing for that increase. (Raguindin Decl., ¶ 5, Attach. 6c, Ex. 4b, pp. 4-16 of pdf; Johnson v. Stanhiser (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 357, 361, italics added [a defaulting defendant admits only the well-pleaded facts concerning liability; the plaintiff must still introduce admissible prima facie evidence of damages].) It is also unclear how the late charges and CAM charges factored into the calculation stated in the 3-Day Notice, as the amount demanded therein is the same amount requested here, but Plaintiff only provided evidence of base rent calculations here. (Raguindin Decl., Attach. 6c, Ex. 6D.)
Second, Plaintiff’s holdover damages are based on the unexplained monthly amount of $6,121.27, and therefore appear to be overstated. (Raguindin Decl., ¶ 10.)
Third, Plaintiff did not dismiss the Doe defendants or alternatively apply for a separate judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a)(7); Code Civ. Proc., § 579.)
Fourth, the amount of attorney fees requested exceeds the amount provided under Local Rule 3.214 and Plaintiff’s counsel did not provide a declaration justifying the amount requested. (See Local Rule 3.214, subd. (d).)
CONCLUSION