Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 25PSCV00480, Date: 2025-06-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 25PSCV00480 Hearing Date: June 24, 2025 Dept: 6
Plaintiff
Cathay Bank’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment
Defendants: Nu-Botanics Candle Corp., Pooya Bakhtiari aka Peter Bakhtiari
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s
request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
This is a lending dispute. On February 11, 2025, plaintiff Cathay Bank (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Nu-Botanics Candle Corp. and Pooya Bakhtiari aka Peter Bakhtiari (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 through 100, alleging causes of action for breach of promissory note, breach of guaranty, claim & delivery, conversion, and specific performance for appointment of receiver and injunctive relief in aid of receiver.
On April 8, 2025, the clerk entered default against Defendants.
On May 7, 2025, 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 Defendants in the total amount of $2,138,535.52, including $2,000,000 in damages, $71,187.05 in non-default contract interest, $39,444.44 in default contract interest, $21,890.00 in attorney fees, and $795.24 in costs. The Court finds some issues with Plaintiff’s default judgment request. First, Plaintiff did not provide any declarations or documentary evidence to support the amounts requested. (Code Civ. Proc., § 585, subd. (b) [“The court shall hear the evidence offered by the plaintiff, and shall render judgment in the plaintiff's 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.)
Second, Plaintiff only provided lump sums for the interest amounts requested and did not provide the calculations for how those amounts were determined. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a)(3); see generally, Plaintiff’s Summary of the Case.)
Third, it is unclear to the Court if some of the interest requested or the damages claimed are improper. Plaintiff seeks both an additional 5.00% default interest and late charges for Defendants’ default and failure to make timely payments. (CIV-100, ¶ 2, subds. (b)-(c).) It strikes the Court as improper for Plaintiff to seek both items arising from the same wrong, i.e., Defendant’s failure to repay as promised. “Double or duplicative recovery for the same items of damage amounts to overcompensation and is therefore prohibited. [Citation.]” (Roby v. McKesson Corp. (2010) 47 Cal.4th 686, 702.)
CONCLUSION