Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 23SMCV02104, Date: 2024-12-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV02104    Hearing Date: December 17, 2024    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Venice Home Construction LLC (“Plaintiff”) requests for default judgment against Defendants AML Associates LLC, Pablo Roskell and Macias Abraham (“Defendants”) in the amount of $322,544.15, which is composed of special damages in the amount of $281,266.13; prejudgment interest in the amount of $40,379.02; and costs in the amount of $899.

            a.         Damages 

            Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges eight causes of action for (1) Breach of Rental Agreement; (2) Trespass; (3) Common Counts; (4) Common Counts on Quantum Meruit; (5) Negligence; (6) Waste; (7) Fraudulent Transfer; and (8) Conspiracy.  Plaintiff’s Complaint was originally brought against Defendants Pablo Roskell, AML Associates LLC, and Macias Abraham.  On June 8, 2023, Plaintiff added Defendant Bettencourtmacias Charan via Doe amendment.  Defendant Charan was dismissed via oral motion on December 12, 2023.  Defendant AML was personally served with the summons and complaint on June 12, 2023 and on February 22, Defendants Roskell and Abraham were served via publication as ordered by the Court on December 5, 2023. Default was entered against Defendant AML on September 14, 2023, and against Defendants Roskell and Abraham on May 1, 2024.  The remaining Doe defendants 2-10 were dismissed on April 14, 2023.

            Plaintiff’s Complaint does not specify the damages sought.  (See Compl.)  The Court cannot award damages that are in excess of what is pled in the Complaint. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 580, subd. (a) [“The relief granted to the plaintiff, if there is no answer, cannot exceed that demanded in the complaint”]; Levine v. Smith (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1136-1137 [“when recovering damages in a default judgment, the plaintiff is limited to the damages specified in the complaint”].)  Therefore, because the Complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought, Defendants were not on notice of their potential liability when default was entered, and the Court cannot grant Plaintiff’s request for default judgment in any amount, on the current Complaint.

            Moreover, Plaintiff appears to include past due rent amounts and sanctions awarded in connection with two prior unlawful detainer cases.  (See Compl. ¶¶ 5, 12, 21 [prior unlawful detainer cases]; ¶¶ 22, 25 [sanctions]; Goudarzi Decl. ¶ 7 [“According to the ledger, Tenants owe $298,516.13 back rent”]; ¶ 27 [“After completion of the unlawful detainer trial, on March 21, 2023, Plaintiff obtained a judgment for possession and $25,000 for damages […] the court also granted $5,252.14 costs and $375 attorney’s fees.”]; ¶ 28 [“Plaintiff has not been able to collect either one of its judgments”].)  The Court cannot enter a judgment that includes amounts that were already awarded.

            In a supplemental declaration Ms. Goudarzi clarifies that the $281,266.13 in damages sought represents $245,516.13 in back rent + $35,750 in damages Plaintiff caused to the property.  (Goudarzi Decl. ¶¶ 7, 9-16, 18-23.) The back rent amount sought represents $298,516.13 in back rent owed as indicated on the ledger - $28,000 security deposit - $25,000 awarded in connection with the limited civil unlawful detainer case.  (Ibid.) 

            Goudarzi raises the issue of sanctions to demonstrate that Defendant Abraham, who is not a party to the lease agreement, conspired with Defendant Roskell to fraudulently transfer title of his vehicle to Abraham to prevent Plaintiff from collecting on the order for sanctions in the prior case.  (Goudarzi Decl. ¶¶ 24-35.)  By this action, Plaintiff seeks to levy the car, which is now in Abraham’s name, to satisfy the prior judgment.

            Fraudulent transfers are voidable.  (Nautilus, Inc. v. Yang (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 33, 39.)  As to Defendant Abraham, Plaintiff alleges only the seventh and eighth causes of action for fraudulent transfer and conspiracy [to commit fraudulent transfer].  Thus, Plaintiff has not alleged, much less established that Abraham is responsible for the back rent or the damages to the property.  As such, the default judgment Plaintiff seeks against Rockwell and Abraham, jointly and severally, is improper.  Rather, Plaintiff must seek judgement against Rockwell for the alleged back owed rent and property damage, and Plaintiff must separately seek judgment against Abraham for the value of the fraudulent conveyance.

            Therefore, the Court cannot award Plaintiff the requested damages.

b.         Prejudgment Interest 

            Because Plaintiff has not demonstrated entitlement to the requested damages, Plaintiff has similarly not demonstrated entitlement to the requested prejudgment interest on those damages.  Plaintiff has not demonstrated entitlement to the requested damages, nor has Plaintiff provided an interest computation.  Therefore, the Court cannot award the requested interest. 

            c.         Costs 

            Plaintiff also requests $899 in costs composed of $439 in filing fees and $460 in “Other” fees, composed of “Skip Trace and Publication.” (CIV-100.)  In general, Plaintiff is entitled to costs as the prevailing party in this action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a)(4).)

            Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 outlines costs that are allowable and not allowable.  Plaintiff is entitled to recover filing fees and publication fees, pursuant to subdivisions (a)(1) and (4).  However, investigation costs are expressly disallowed, pursuant to subdivision (b).  Therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to recover skip tracing costs. 

            Because the Court cannot discern what portion of the $460 is for “publication” (and therefore allowable) and what portion is for “skip trace” (which is not allowable), the court cannot order the costs as requested.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s request for default judgment is denied without prejudice. 

DATED:  December 17, 2024                        ________________________________

                                                                        Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                        Judge of the Superior Court