Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 24PSCV02951, Date: 2025-01-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24PSCV02951 Hearing Date: January 29, 2025 Dept: 6
Plaintiff
’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment
Defendant: SFO Merchandise, Inc.
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
This is a breach of contract case. On September 9, 2024, plaintiff United Supply Chain Services Inc. (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant SFO Merchandise Inc. (Defendant) and Does 1 to 10, alleging causes of action for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion.
On October 29, 2024, default was entered against Defendant.
On December 20, 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 $1,515,743.87, including $1,511,347.00 in damages, $3,778.36 in interest, and $618.51 in costs. The Court notes a few issues with Plaintiff’s default judgment request. First, some of the evidence submitted lacks foundation, such as the contract. (Cullinane Decl., Ex. A.) The declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel is insufficient because it lacks personal knowledge regarding the contract and many of the details that led to this lawsuit. (Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 288 [declarations submitted in support of default judgment found to be “useless as evidence” where they were unintelligible and lacked foundation].) Plaintiff needs to submit declarations and evidence from someone having personal knowledge to establish an adequate foundation to support the amount of damages requested. (See Johnson v. Stanhiser (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 357, 361 [plaintiff must still introduce admissible prima facie evidence of damages].)
Second, the other documentary evidence Plaintiff submitted shows damages amounting to only $1,251,347.00. (Cullinane Decl., Ex. B.) Plaintiff will need to submit additional evidence to support the full $1,511,347.00 requested, as Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration is insufficient for the reasons set forth above. (See Cullinane Decl., ¶¶ 12-14.)
Third, Plaintiff did not provide a prejudgment interest calculation. (See Cullinane Decl., ¶ 20; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a)(3).)
CONCLUSION