Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 23STCV10272, Date: 2023-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV10272    Hearing Date: September 20, 2023    Dept: 34

PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT

I.          BACKGROUND

On May 8, 2023, Plaintiff National Commercial Recovery, Inc. filed its Complaint against Defendants M.C C & J Enterprise Corp. and Joungho Choo on causes of action for common counts (open book account), common counts (goods sold and delivered), account stated, and money due on dishonored checks.

On June 20, 2023, by request of Plaintiff, the Clerk’s Office entered default on Defendants.

On July 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed:

(1)       Judicial Council Form CIV-100, Request for Court Judgment;

(2)       Judicial Council Form CIV-110, Request for Dismissal;

(3)       Judicial Council Form JUD-100, Proposed Judgment;

(4)       Judicial Council Form MC-030, Declaration (in support of interest calculations);

(5)       Judicial Council Form MC-030, Declaration (in support of treble damages);

(6)       Judicial Council Form MC-030, Declaration (in support of entry of default judgment);

(7)       Judicial Council Form MC-030, Declaration (in support of attorney’s fees);

(8)       Case Summary;

(9)       Declaration of Edna Kamjoo; and

(10)    Declaration of Ron Smith;

On July 20, by request of Plaintiff, the Clerk’s Office dismissed the Doe Defendants from this matter.

II.       ANALYSIS

Plaintiff has not correctly calculated two figures.

        First, regarding prejudgment interest, the allegations indicate that these damages (based on common counts) were liquidated as of December 18, 2022. (Complaint, ¶ 9.) The Declaration of Edna Kamjoo supports these allegations, and thus prejudgment interest for the common counts is allowed as of that date. (Notably, prejudgment is only allowed for damages on the common counts, and not for the fourth cause of action, in which Plaintiff is receiving statutory damages pursuant to Civil Code section 1719. [Imperial Merch. Servs., Inc. v. Hunt (2009) 47 Cal.4th 381, 398.].) However, the Declaration in support of interest calculations makes minor rounding errors. The amount of prejudgment interest is actually $5,342.79, not $5,344.63.

        Second, regarding treble damages pursuant to Civil Code section 1719, the amount requested is $4,500.00. The statute states in relevant part:

“If this person fails to pay in full the amount of the check, the service charge payable to the payee, and the costs to mail the written demand within this period, this person shall then be liable instead for the amount of the check, minus any partial payments made toward the amount of the check or the service charge within 30 days of the written demand, and damages equal to treble that amount, which shall not be less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500).” (Civ. Code, § 1719, subd. (a)(2).)

The statutory damages clause states “which shall not be less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500).” This clause refers to the word “damages” in the immediately preceding clause, which means that the maximum amount of statutory damages is $1,500.00.

Dictum from our Supreme Court supports this interpretation of the clause.  “In 1995, the Legislature . . . increased the treble damages cap from $500 to $1,500.” (See Imperial Merch. Servs., Inc., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 391].)

        The Court GRANTS in part the Request for Default Judgment. Judgment is awarded in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the total amount of $100,990.48. This consists of $92,422.69 in damages, $5,342.79 in prejudgment interest on damages, $1,500.00 in statutory damages, $1,200.00 in attorney’s fees, and $525.00 in costs, as indicated in the spreadsheet below: