Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 24SMCV00128, Date: 2024-07-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV00128    Hearing Date: July 29, 2024    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff JF, LLC (“Plaintiff”) requests for default judgment against Defendants CT Cabinet Finishing, Inc. and Carlo Danielians (“Defendants”) in the amount of $326,022.45, representing $268,000 in special damages; prejudgment interest in the amount of $52,839.45; costs in the amount of $613; and attorneys’ fees in the amount of $4,570.

            a.         Damages 

This case arises from a dispute concerning construction work done on Plaintiff’s residence.  On January 8, 2024, Plaintiff brought suit against Defendants CT Cabinet Finishing, Inc.; Carlo Danielians; RTA Cabinetry, Inc.; Sevag Evartarazian; Business Alliance Insurance Company; and Old Republic Surety Company, alleging four causes of action for (1) breach of contract; (2) recovery of payments to unlicensed contractor; (3) on contractor’s license bond; and (4) on contractor’s license bond. 

Plaintiff subsequently dismissed Defendants RTA Cabinetry, Inc.; Sevag Evartarazian; Businsess Alliance Insurance Company; and Old Republic Surety Company on February 9, 2024.

Defendant CT Cabinet Finishing, Inc. was personally served and Defendant Danielians was served via substitute service on January 17, 2024.  Default was entered against them on February 27, 2024.  The Doe defendants were dismissed on June 21, 2024.

            Plaintiff’s complaint seeks $750,000.  Therefore, Plaintiff does not seek damages in excess of what is alleged 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 Farshad Melamed, attached to which is the parties’ contract for the installation of cabinets for $355,735, proof of Plaintiff’s payments in the amount of $268,000, and indicating that Defendants stopped work before it was complete, leaving $206,435 of work completed and $149,300 in unfinished work, resulting in an overpayment of $61,565.  (Melamed Decl. ¶¶ 2-4 and Exs. A-B.)  Subsequently, Plaintiff discovered that Defendants are not licensed by the California State Contractors License Board, entitling Plaintiff to rescission of all payments made, pursuant to Business & Professions Code section 7031, subdivison (b).  (Id. at ¶¶ 6-8.)

            Therefore, Plaintiff has demonstrated entitlement to the requested $268,000 in damages.

c.         Prejudgment Interest 

            Plaintiff calculates the requested interest by calculating a 10% interest rate from the date of each payment through April 30, 2024 as follows:

·       $6.85 daily interest on $25,000 for the 1194 days from 1/22/21 = $8,178.08

·       $10.96 daily interest on $40,000 for the 798 days from 2/22/22 = $8,745.21

·       $4.93 daily interest on $18,000 for the 778 days from 3/14/22 = $3,836.71

·       $10.96 daily interest on $40,000 for the 762 days from 3/30/22 = $8,350.68

·       $6.85 daily interest on $25,000 for the 665 days from 7/5/22 = $4,554.79

·       $6.85 daily interest on $25,000 for the 643 days from 7/27/22 = $4,404.11

·       $4.11 daily interest on $15,000 for the 642 days from 7/28/22 = $2,638.36

·       $6.85 daily interest on $25,000 for the 620 days from 8/19/22 = $4,246.58

·       $6.85 daily interest on $25,000 for the 610 days from 8/29/22 = $4,178.08

·       $8.22 daily interest on $30,000 for the 585 days from 9/23/22 = $4,808.22

For a total of $53,940.82.

            Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for prejudgment interest is granted.

            d.         Attorneys’ Fees and Costs 

Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, which outlines recoverable costs to a prevailing party under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, permits the recovery of attorneys’ fees when authorized by contract, statute, or law.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10).)  Code of Civil Procedure section 1021 provides “[e]xcept as attorney’s fees are specifically provided for by statute, the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties [….]”  Similarly, Civil Code section 1717 provides “[i]n any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney’s fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs.”  (Civ. Code, § 1717, subd. (a).)

The Code of Civil Procedure defines the “prevailing party” as follows:

[T]he party with a net monetary recovery, a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered, a defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant obtains any relief, and a defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant. If any party recovers other than monetary relief and in situations other than as specified, the “prevailing party” shall be as determined by the court, and under those circumstances, the court, in its discretion, may allow costs or not and, if allowed, may apportion costs between the parties on the same or adverse sides pursuant to rules adopted under Section 1034.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a)(4).)

            Plaintiff has not provided any evidence that a contract or other statute entitles Plaintiff to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees.  In particular, the contract does not contain an attorneys’ fee provision.  Therefore, the Court cannot award the requested attorneys’ fees.          

            Plaintiff also requests $613 in costs composed of $435 in filing fees and $178 in process server fees. (CIV-100.)  Plaintiff’s request for costs is granted, as Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a)(4).)

CONCLUSION

            For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s request for default judgment is denied without prejudice.  Plaintiff has demonstrated entitlement to the requested $268,000 in special damages, $53,940.82 in prejudgment interest, and $613 in costs, but not the requested attorneys’ fees. 

            Alternatively, if Plaintiff forgoes the request the attorneys’ fees, the Court will enter the default judgment as requested, less $4570.00 which is the amount requested for the attorneys' fees.

DATED:  July 29, 2024                                  ________________________________

                                                                        Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                        Judge of the Superior Court