Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 23SMCV03750, Date: 2024-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV03750    Hearing Date: May 2, 2024    Dept: 207

RULING

Plaintiff De Young Kim Legacy Trust (“Plaintiff”) requests for default judgment against Defendant Robbie Neman (“Defendant”) in the amount of $213,035, which is composed of special damages in the amount of $212,500 and costs in the amount of $535.

            a.         Damages 

            Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges a single cause of action for breach of lease agreement.  Defendant was personally served with a copy of the summons and complaint on August 29, 2023. Default was entered against Defendant on February 7, 2024.

            Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks $212,500 in unpaid rent. (See Complaint ¶ 7.)  Therefore, Plaintiff does not seek damages in excess of those 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”].) 

            In support of the request, Plaintiff has provided the Declaration of Soyoung Cho, but Plaintiff has not produced a copy of the rental agreement or other financial records indicating the outstanding balance due.  As such, the Cho declaration is hearsay, and insufficient to satisfy Plaintiff’s evidentiary burden.

            Moreover, the Court notes that “a trust is not a legal entity” and “it cannot sue or be sued, but rather legal proceedings are properly directed at the trustee[.]”  (Jo Redland Trust, U.A.D. 4-6-05 v. CIT Bank, N.A. (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 142, 156.)  Therefore, because the named Plaintiff is a trust, as opposed to the trustee of a trust, the Court cannot enter judgment as requested.

            d.         Costs 

            Plaintiff also requests $535 in costs composed of $450 in filing fees and $85 in process server fees. (CIV-100.)  Once a proper Plaintiff is established, Plaintiff’s request for costs is generally warranted as Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a)(4).)

CONCLUSION

            Because Plaintiff has not supported the request for default judgment with adequate evidence and because Plaintiff is a trust, which is not a legal entity that can sue, Plaintiff’s request for default judgment is denied without prejudice. 

            Therefore, the Court continues the Order to Show Cause re: Entry of Default Judgment to August 1, 2024 at 8:30 A.M. in Department 207.