TENTATIVE 

Plaintiffs Umais Abubaker and Dynamic And Strategic Distribution And Management Middle East (FZE) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) failed this action against defendants Irfan Sajjad Ahmed, Sachal Aftab, Fizzah Nasir, Naveed Sajjad Ahmed, Connect Emerald, and Does 1 through 20. The complaint sets forth eleven causes of action for (1) demand for accounting, (2) breach of contract, (3) breach of fiduciary duty, (4) common counts - money owed, (5) common counts – quantum meruit, (6) fraud, (7) unjust enrichment, (8) negligent/wanton hiring, training, supervision & retention, (9) civil conspiracy, (10) civil theft, and (11) unfair business practices. 

In connection with an OSC Re: Default Judgment that this Court will set, the Court briefly reviews Plaintiffs’ application for default judgment filed on February 27, 2024 in order to highlight procedural deficiencies for correction. Plaintiffs are to file a new default package curing the deficiencies, as set forth below, at least nine (9) court days in advance of the OSC Re: Default Judgment. 

First, on the application for court judgment filed on Judicial Council form CIV-100, Item 1(b), plaintiff Dynamic And Strategic Distribution And Management Middle East (FZE)’s full name is cut-off as “Dynamic And Strategic Distributio.” Additionally, completion of Item 8 on CIV-100 is mandatory pursuant to CRC, Rule 3.1800(a)(5); this portion is unsigned. 

Second, the request seeks default judgment against defendants Irfan Sajjad Ahmed, Fizzah Nasir, Naveed Sajjad Ahmed, and Connect Emerald. However, dismissal was entered against Irfan Sajjad Ahmed on August 14, 2024. Irfan Sajjad Ahmed is no longer a party to this action for default to be sought against.  

Third, Plaintiffs have not dismissed defendants Sachal Aftab and Does 1 through 20. Plaintiffs are required to dismiss all parties against whom default judgment is not sought pursuant to CRC, Rule 3.1800(a)(7). 

Fourth, Plaintiffs have not proven their damages. A defaulting defendant admits only the well pled facts concerning liability, not damages. A plaintiff must still introduce admissible prima facie evidence of damages. (Johnson v. Stanhiser (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 357, 361; see also CRC, Rule 3.1800(a)(2).) Here, the declaration of Plaintiff Umais Abubaker merely recites the allegations of the complaint in verbatim. No evidence was proffered to support the amount requested in damages, and the declaration as it currently stands is insufficient. 

Fifth, Plaintiffs seek default judgment in the amount of $2,400,000, which is greater than the amount provided in Plaintiffs’ Prayer for Relief. The Prayer contained in the complaint seeks general economic damages of $800,000. Plaintiffs are necessarily capped by the specific amount pled in the complaint. The Legislature has provided that a default judgment “cannot exceed that demanded in the complaint.” (§§ 580, 585, subds. (a) & (b).) “[A] default judgment greater than the amount specifically demanded is void as beyond the [trial] court's jurisdiction.” (Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 826, 231 Cal.Rptr. 220, 726 P.2d 1295, italics added.) 

The Court sets an OSC Re: Default Judgment for _____________________. Plaintiffs are to file a new default package correcting the deficiencies noted above no later than nine (9) court days prior to the hearing. Failure to do so may result in the denial of Plaintiffs’ application for default judgment and/or the imposition of sanctions.