Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 21STCV40855, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling
Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 74 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept74@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative.
IF THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT RECEIVE AN EMAIL INDICATING THE PARTIES ARE SUBMITTING ON THE TENTATIVE RULING AND THERE ARE NO APPEARANCES AT THE HEARING, THE MOTION WILL BE PLACED OFF CALENDAR.
If you decide not to submit on the tentative ruling, REMOTE APPEARANCES ARE AUTHORIZED AND STRONGLY ENCOURAGED. Please visit the court’s Here for You | Safe for You News Center for the latest orders governing court business. http://www.lacourt.org/newsmedia/ui/HfySfy.aspx
In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind: The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record. Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply repeat that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated. If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.
Case Number: 21STCV40855 Hearing Date: December 9, 2022 Dept: 74
21STCV40855 DONALD
POVIENG vs JITESH K RAJA
OSC Re Entry Default Judgment
TENTATIVE RULING: The request for entry of default judgment is
DENIED. Plaintiff is granted leave to file and serve a Second Amended Complaint
within 30 days. A Case Management
Conference is scheduled for February 9, 2023, at 8:30 a.m.
Background
On November 5, 2021, Plaintiff Donald
Povieng, as Trustee of PC Solo 401k Trust, filed this action against Defendants
Jitesh K Raja, Motiv Holdings, LLC, And
Motiv SF Partners 1, LLC.
Plaintiff
filed the First Amended Complaint on January 3, 2022 asserting causes of action
for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. The FAC alleges Plaintiff
invested $100,000.00 in exchange for 16.67% of the Class B Membership Interests
in Defendant Motiv SF and Defendant Raja, through Defendant Motiv Holdings,
mismanaged Defendant Motiv SF and violated terms of the Operating Agreement.
On
May 17, 2022, the Court granted Defendants’ unopposed motion to quash service
of summons.
On
August 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed additional proofs of substituted service as to
each Defendant and the clerk entered Defendants’ defaults.
Legal Standard
Code
of Civil Procedure section 585 permits entry of a judgment after a Defendant
fails to timely answer following proper service of process. A party seeking
judgment on the default by the Court must file a Request for Court Judgment,
and provide: (1) a brief summary of the case; (2) declarations or other
admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3) interest
computations as necessary; (4) a memorandum of costs and disbursements; (5) a
proposed form of judgment; (6) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment
is not sought; (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not
sought or an application for separate judgment under Code of Civil Procedure
section 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (8) exhibits
as necessary; and (9) a request for attorneys’ fees if allowed by statute or by
the agreement of the parties. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.1800(a).)
Discussion
Proof of Service: Proof of
substitute service as to all Defendants filed August 11, 2022.
Entry of Default: Default
entered as to all Defendants on August 11, 2022.
Supporting
Documents Submitted (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.1800):
Requested Judgment: Plaintiff seeks entry of judgment
against Defendants Jitesh Raja, Motiv Holdings, LLC, and Motiv SF Partners 1,
LLC consisting of the following:
-
Damages:
$ 50,002.00
-
Attorneys’
Fees: $ 30,000.00
-
Costs: $
2,902.70
-
Prejudgment
Interest: $ 13.70/day
Plaintiff Must File and Serve a Second Amended
Complaint
As
acknowledged by Plaintiff in his supporting memorandum, the First Amended
Complaint “alleges ‘damages in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this Court’
and “[f]or compensatory damages in an amount to be determined in accordance
with proof at trial” for both the first and second causes of action in the
Amended Complaint. (Amended Complaint ¶¶ 30, 35 and Prayer for Relief.)” (Memo.
at 13:7-13.)
“[A]
prayer for damages according to proof passes muster under section 580 only if a
specific amount of damages is alleged in the body of the complaint.” (Becker v. S.P.V. Construction Co. (1980)
27 Cal.3d 489, 494. See also Kim
v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 286 (“As this court
has iterated and then reiterated, Code of Civil Procedure section 580 prohibits
the entry of a default judgment in an amount in excess of that demanded in the
complaint.”); Janssen v. Luu (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 272, 275 (“the amount
of damages communicated to the defaulting defendant sets the ceiling on the
plaintiff's recovery, and that a default judgment in excess of that amount is
void.”).)
Because
Plaintiff’s FAC does not contain a specific damages allegation, Plaintiff seeks
$25,001.00 in damages for each cause of action, which Plaintiff argues is
consistent with his allegation regarding the minimum jurisdiction of the Court.
(Memo. at 9:26-10:2 (“As set forth in the Complaint, Plaintiff has been harmed
‘in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this Court,’ which in this unlimited
case is $25,001.”); Id. at 12:12-14 (same); Id, at 13:7-13.) However, a default
judgment cannot be based upon Plaintiff’s invocation of the “jurisdictional
limit” of the Court. (See Van Sickle v.
Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1529 (“[T]here no longer is a minimum
jurisdictional amount for the superior court to which a default judgment can be
reduced.”).)
Accordingly,
the Court cannot enter any default judgment on the existing First Amended
Complaint.
The
request for entry of default judgment is DENIED. Plaintiff is granted leave to
file and serve a Second Amended Complaint.