Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 25PSCV00609, Date: 2025-07-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 25PSCV00609 Hearing Date: July 16, 2025 Dept: 6
Plaintiff
Puente Hills Business Center II, L.P.’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment
Defendants: TYYN Logistics, Inc., Zhijian Wang
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
This is a breach of commercial lease agreement. On February 21, 2025, plaintiff Puente Hills Business Center II, L.P. (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants TYYN Logistics, Inc., Zhijian Wang (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 to 10, alleging causes of action for breach of lease, breach of guaranty, and common count.
On April 28, 2025, the clerk entered default against Defendants.
On May 27, 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 $166,840.20, including $163,428.19 in damages, $2,467.01 in attorney fees, and $945.00 in costs. The Court finds Plaintiff’s damage request improper, as it exceeds the $85,000.00 amount alleged in the complaint. (Compl., ¶¶ 11, 14, 16, Prayer for Relief, ¶¶ 1, 4, 7.) Plaintiff may not seek damages greater than the amount prayed for in the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 580, subds. (a)-(c); Paterra v. Hansen (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 507, 536; Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 826.) “The purpose of [Code of Civil Procedure] section 580 is to require the plaintiff to provide notice of the maximum amount of the defendant's potential liability.” (Electronic Funds Solutions, LLC v. Murphy (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1174; see also Becker v. S.P.V. Constr. Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 489, 494 [“a prayer for damages according to proof passes muster under section 580 only if a specific amount of damages is alleged in the body of the complaint”].) “The courts have consistently held section 580 is an unqualified limit on the jurisdiction of courts entering default judgments. As a general rule, a default judgment is limited to the damages of which the defendant had notice. Further, the courts have reaffirmed the language of section 580 is mandatory. Therefore, ‘in all default judgments the demand sets a ceiling on recovery.’” (Finney v. Gomez (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 527, 534, fns. omitted, quoting Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.) Because that ceiling is jurisdictional, “a default judgment is void when the damages are in excess of the damages specified in the complaint or the statement of damages.” (Yeung v. Soos (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 576, 582.) The Court also notes that Plaintiff’s declaration indicates a different damage amount. (Igo Decl., ¶ 7.)
CONCLUSION