TENTATIVE 

Plaintiff Perry Decuir (“Plaintiff”) filed this action Defendant Michael Marks (“Defendant”) alleging that Defendant was Plaintiff’s landlord, who negligently placed an ozone generator to create foul air and an uninhabitable premises during Plaintiff’s residency in order to vacate Plaintiff from the premises. As a result of the ozone generator machine, Plaintiff alleges it caused him severe sore throat, difficulty breathing, shortness of breath, and severe coughing.  

On default judgment, Plaintiff requests $29,000 in general damages, and $651.75 in costs for clerks’ filing fees and process server’s fees.  

This is Plaintiff’s second request for default judgment. The request for default judgment submitted on October 12, 2023 is DENIED for the following reasons: 

Plaintiff cured some of the deficiencies previously identified, namely the issue of damages on default judgment to not exceed the amount set forth in the statement of damages.  

However, Plaintiff again has failed to provide any supporting evidence for the amount sought. A defaulting defendant admits only the well pled facts concerning liability, not damages; however, a plaintiff must still introduce admissible prima facie evidence of damages. (Johnson v. Stanhiser (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 357, 361.) 

This is the second time that the Court has identified these same defects, 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 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 __________.