Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV07657, Date: 2023-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV07657    Hearing Date: April 25, 2023    Dept: 34

PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT

I.           BACKGROUND

On March 2, 2022, Plaintiff Gomez Law, APC filed its Complaint against Defendant Cuttino Mobley on a cause of action for breach of contract.

On March 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed:

(1)       CIV-100, Request for Entry of Default and Court Judgment;

(2)       JUD-100, Proposed Judgment

(3)       MC-030, Declaration; and

(4)       Declaration of Mark Gomez.

On March 7, the Clerk’s Office entered default on Defendant.

II.        ANALYSIS

The Request for Default Judgment is GRANTED in part in the amount of $11,460.27.

The Court has reduced the damages award to $10,000.00 because the attorney’s fees charged for a months-long wrongful foreclosure case do not appear reasonable. “A trial court may not rubber stamp a request for attorney fees, but must determine the number of hours reasonably expended.” (Morris v. Hyundai Motor America (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 24, 38, quoting Donahue v. Donahue (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 259, 271.)  Further, “the trial court ... is not bound by the itemization claimed in the attorney’s affidavit.”  (Morris v. Hyundai Motor America (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 24, 40, quoting Melnyk v. Robledo (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 618, 625.)

The Court declines to award costs.  No evidence of costs incurred has been produced. The interest payment has been reduced to align with the reduction in damages.

The Court declines to award attorney’s fees because Plaintiff has not demonstrated that it is entitled to any attorney’s fees. Upon the Court’s review of the contracts, there are no provisions that allow for recovery for breach of contract. (Plaintiff did attach the retainer agreements, but they are heavily redacted. [See Gomez, Declaration, Exhs. 1 and 2.]  The Court does not understand why the attached agreements were redacted.)

Even if there was an attorney's fees provision in the contract signed by defendant, Plaintiff is a law firm, and there is no indication that it has used outside counsel and thus incurred legal fees.  The California Supreme Court in Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274 concluded that an attorney litigant representing him or herself in pro se cannot recover attorney’s fees under Civil Code Section 1717.  The Court recognizes that the law firm, Gomez & Simone, assigned this case collections case to Gomez Law, APC.  (See Gomez, Declaration, Exh. 4.)  However, Mark Gomez is the owner of both Gomez & Simone and Gomez Law, APC.  Both companies list the same office, 3055 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 3055, Los Angeles, CA  90010.  (Id.) The Court views this assignment to be a sham to avoid the mandates of Trope v. Katz. 

The Court enters default judgment in the amount of $11,460.27 as indicated below: