Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22CMCV00006, Date: 2024-03-22 Tentative Ruling

INSTRUCTIONS: If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must:

1. Contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling.

2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and

3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service.

If this procedure is followed, when the case is called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing. If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may either be taken off calendar or ruled on. 

TENTATIVE RULINGS -- http://www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/ui/main.aspx?casetype=civil

Case Number: 22CMCV00006    Hearing Date: March 22, 2024    Dept: A

22CMCV00006 Luis D. Garcia, et al v. Redwood Holdings, LLC, et al.

OSC: Friday, March 22, 2024, at 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER REQUIRING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE DAMAGES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR COURT JUDGMENT

      This action arises from Plaintiffs’ purchase of residential real property from Redwood Holdings. Plaintiffs sue all Defendants for their alleged failure to disclose known material defects.  

      In the main action, all parties have been dismissed except Paul A. Monney, individually, and dba One Real Estate Inspectors (“Defendant”), whose default was entered on May 5, 2022, and against whom Plaintiffs request a court judgment.

      Plaintiffs allege they hired Defendant Monney to conduct a home inspection prior to close of escrow. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant breached the applicable duty of care by failing to discover significant  defects and conditions in the home.

      Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s inspection report contained material misrepresentations of fact – namely that the home was in good or fair condition when the true facts were that the home had significant defects. Plaintiffs allege claims for violation of Bus. and Prof. Code § 7196 (inspector’s standard of care), negligent misrepresentation, and professional negligence against Defendant Monney.    

      While a defaulting defendant confesses the material terms of the complaint that are well pleaded, a plaintiff must submit evidence of facts “concerning the damages alleged in the complaint.” (Petty v. Manpower, Inc. (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 794, 798; HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. v. Aguilar (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th Supp. 6, 12 Carlsen v. Koivumaki (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 879, 899–900; Carlsen v. Koivumaki (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 879, 899–900.) Damages not fixed by contract must be proved. (Petty v. Manpower, Inc. (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 794, 798.)

      Plaintiffs contend they spent a total of $65,000 making repairs that should have been identified by Defendant. (Luis Garcia decl., ¶ 8.) Plaintiffs offset their principal damages by the amount obtained in settlement with other parties, leaving a principal balance of $24,000.[1] Plaintiffs submit an estimate of repairs totaling $165,000 but no evidence that they incurred repair expenses totaling $65,000. (Mot. Ex. 4.) Plaintiffs have not provided evidence of other settlements applied to offset Plaintiffs’ recovery.

      Accordingly, the Court continues the hearing on the Order to Show Cause re: Default to June 4, 2024 , at 8:30 a.m. in Department A of the Compton Courthouse. Plaintiffs are ordered to submit at least 10 days prior to the hearing (or earlier) a supplemental declaration and documentary evidence proving their damages incurred as a result of Defendant’s conduct, and evidence of the amounts obtained in settlement.