Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 24STCV19394, Date: 2025-06-02 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - MICHAEL J. SHULTZ  - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 



Case Number: 24STCV19394    Hearing Date: June 2, 2025    Dept: 40

24STCV19394 Collect Access LLC v. Stetson McKenzie Showen, aka Stetsen Showen

Monday, June 2, 2025

 

       The complaint alleges that Defendant became indebted to Plaintiff’s assignor, Financial Pacific Leasing, Inc., in connection with an Equipment Finance Agreement. Defendant failed to remit payment on February 29, 2024.  Plaintiff seeks damages of $45,207.60. The court entered default against Defendant on November 19, 2024. All DOE defendants have been dismissed.

       The court continued the hearing from February 11, 2025, for Plaintiff to submit evidence of the contract purportedly signed by Defendant or admissible evidence of the principal damage sustained.

       Plaintiff filed a second declaration submitting the contract documents, however there is no evidence of damages.

       While a defaulting defendant confesses the material terms of the complaint that are well pleaded, Plaintiff must submit evidence of facts “concerning the damages alleged in the complaint.” (Petty v. Manpower, Inc. (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 794, 798. Damages not fixed by contract must be proved. (Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 272 [“… it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove up his damages, with actual evidence.”].)

       Plaintiff has had two opportunities to submit a valid default judgment. On February 11, 2025, the Court identified the problem for Plaintiff, noting that “Plaintiff has not submitted documentary evidence in support of the principal damage sustained in the form of a statement of account, a demand letter, an invoice, and/or other admissible and authenticated documentary evidence.”  (M.O. 2/11/25.)  The Court gave Plaintiff nearly four months to cure this defect.  Plaintiff submitted a second declaration but failed to submit any evidence of damages.  Accordingly, the request for default judgment is DENIED and the case is DISMISSED.


Website by Triangulus