Judge: Mark V. Mooney, Case: 21STCV09157, Date: 2022-10-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV09157    Hearing Date: October 17, 2022    Dept: 68

TENTATIVE RULING: PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT IS CONTINUED:

CCP § 585 permits entry of a judgment after a Defendant has failed to timely answer after being properly served.  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) a proposed form of judgment; (6) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought; (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under CCP § 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.  (CRC Rule 3.1800.) 

Plaintiffs’ Default Judgment package is deficient for the following reasons: 

·         Plaintiffs failed to dismiss the Doe defendants.

·         The Judgment seeks recovery from both Stuart and Annette as if they are jointly and severally liable for the debts.  But a review of the written agreements shows that the agreements are only with each individual separately.  So too, the checks issued by Plaintiffs reveal that they were issued by Plaintiffs to Stuart individually and Annette individually.  There is no language included in the agreements or checks that both Stuart and Annette are liable for the debt. Accordingly, the Judgment should be based on the liability as to each defendant separately.

·         Since the amount each owes is to be recalculated, the interest calculation as to each must be prepared.

Thus, Plaintiffs’ Request for Default Judgment will be continued to allow Plaintiffs to cure the deficiencies identified above.