Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 20STCV28814, Date: 2024-08-21 Tentative Ruling
All rulings shown here are TENTATIVE ONLY, and thus oral argument WILL be heard. All Counsel are still required to attend.
Case Number: 20STCV28814 Hearing Date: August 21, 2024 Dept: 45
Hearing Date: August
21, 2024
Moving
Party: Plaintiff
Susan Delgado
Responding
Party: N/A
Motion:
Request for Default
Judgment
Background
On
July 30, 2020, Susan Delgado (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Hi-Tek Auto
Protection (Hi-Tek), Jason Garcia (Jason), and Paul Garcia (Paul, collectively Defendants).
The Complaint alleged twelve separate causes of action.
On
August 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Request for Default Judgment against all
three Defendants.
Discussion
Legal Standard
The governing rule is Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1800 which lays out the
requirements for default judgments. In pertinent part, the rule dictates that a
party must use form CIV-100 and file the following documents with the clerk:
(1) Except in unlawful detainer cases, a brief summary of the case identifying
the parties and the nature of plaintiff's claim; (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 declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant against whom
judgment is sought; (6) A proposed form of judgment;
(7) A dismissal of all parties against
whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against
specified parties 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 attorney fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement
of the parties.
Analysis
Here,
although Plaintiff filed the requisite CIV-100 form, the form is deficient for
multiple reasons. First, it requests default to be entered against a defendant
– Jason Garcia – who has already been dismissed. (See June 10, 2022 Minute
Order). Second, the form does not indicate whether notice was mailed to the defaulting
Defendants (Code Civ. Proc. §587.) Third, Plaintiff failed to indicate in part
5 on page 2 whether the action is (a) on a contract or installment sale for
goods or services, (b) on a conditional sales contract, or (c) on an obligation
for goods, services, loans, or extensions. Finally, the Court does not possess
a dismissal of DOES on the record.
Conclusion
Accordingly,
the Request for Default Judgment is DENIED.
It is so ordered.
Dated: August 21, 2024
_______________________
MEL RED RECANA
Judge of the
Superior Court