Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 24PSCV03663, Date: 2025-03-19 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24PSCV03663 Hearing Date: March 19, 2025 Dept: 6
Plaintiff County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los Angeles County’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment
Defendant: Delori-NutiFood Products, Inc. (fka Delori Products, Inc.)
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
This is a wastewater ordinance case. On October 28, 2024, plaintiff County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los Angeles County (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant Delori-NutiFood Products, Inc. (Defendant) and Does 1 through 25, alleging nine counts of wastewater ordinance violations.
On January 9, 2025, default was entered 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 $87,492.04, including $85,458.10 in damages and $2,033.94 in interest. The Court notes a couple issues with the default judgment request. First, Plaintiff provided no documentary evidence to support the amount of damages requested. The declarations submitted are insufficient to prove damages. (Code Civ. Proc., § 585, subd. (b) ["The court shall hear the evidence offered by the plaintiff and shall render judgment in the plaintiffs favor for that relief, not exceeding the amount stated in the complaint,… as appears by the evidence to be just"]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subds. (a)(2), (a)(8).) In the context of a request for court judgment by default, evidence to establish liability is not required since a defendant’s failure to answer the complaint admits the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint, and no further proof of liability is required. (Carlsen v. Koivumaki (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 879, 883.) However, proof of damages is still required. (Id. at p. 884.) Given the detailed damage calculations submitted, it stands to reason that Plaintiff would have documents evidencing the amounts requested. (See generally, Pike Decl.)
Second, it is unclear to the Court under what statutes or ordinances Plaintiff calculated the prejudgment interest requests. Generally, prejudgment interest in non-contract cases is limited to 7% per year. (Civ. Code, §§ 3287, subd. (a) 3288; Cal. Const. Art. XV, § 1.) Children's Hosp. and Medical Center v. Bonta (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 740, 775 [prejudgment interest rate for non-contract claims is 7%]; Los Angeles National Bank v. Bank of Canton (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 726, 745-746 [7% prejudgment interest rate applies to claims for statutory violations].) This case involves statutory violations, but the interest rates requested are for 0.645833% per month (7.75% per year), 0.937500% per month (11.25% per year), and 0.958333% per month (11.50% per year). If such rates are otherwise authorized by statute, the Court requests Plaintiff to provide the specific code provisions that authorize these interest rates with the next default judgment package.
CONCLUSION