TENTATIVE 

Plaintiff’s counsel filed a declaration on February 26, 2024 requesting the OSC be continued by 120 days. Plaintiff’s counsel provides no explanation for the request, especially when the default judgment package has already been filed with the Court since December 2023. The Court will not continue the OSC.  

This is Plaintiff’s second request for default judgment. The request for default judgment submitted on December 7, 2023 is DENIED for the following reasons: 

First, Plaintiff did not submit a request for dismissal of all defendants against whom judgment is not sought, which includes all unnamed Doe defendants, in this action. (CRC 3.1800(a)(7).) The Court had previously informed Plaintiff of this issue. 

Second, the Court notes that on the August 18, 2023 denial, Plaintiff previously sought default judgment against both James Michael Dunn (“James”) as the owner of the vehicle, and against Cameron Dunn (“Cameron”) as the driver. Here, Plaintiff now seeks default judgment against Cameron only. If Plaintiff is no longer seeking judgment against James, then Plaintiff must dismiss him. Otherwise, Plaintiff must apply for default judgment against both James and Cameron simultaneously.  

Third, Plaintiff must authenticate the records attached to his declaration by stating that they are true and correct copies. Plaintiff merely refers to them as attached. Additionally, Plaintiff declares that his vehicle was a total loss and that the “Fair Market Value” was $8,000. However, Plaintiff provides no information regarding the age and model of his vehicle, and how Plaintiff calculated the “Fair Market Value”. Further, Plaintiff declares he is seeking a principal sum of $30,000 without providing any detail of what this amount is comprised of. If a portion of this is comprised of special damages, which are capable of being made certain, then Plaintiff must state what amount and provide evidence supporting the amount sought.   

This is the second time that the Court has identified the same defects of dismissing all defendants against whom default judgment is not sought, which Plaintiff, through counsel, has failed to correct. Plaintiff’s counsel has failed to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to comply with the Court’s prior orders and for failure to prosecute. Accordingly, the Court hereby imposes against Plaintiff’s counsel monetary sanctions of $250 payable within 30 days. 

No later than _________________,Plaintiff is to submit a new default judgment package correcting these defects.  Failure to do so may result in the imposition of sanctions, including monetary sanctions and/or dismissal. The OSC re entry of default judgment is continued to _____________________.