Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 23PSCV00162, Date: 2023-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV00162    Hearing Date: September 6, 2023    Dept: K

Plaintiff Persolve Legal Group, LLP’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

Background   

This is a Fair Debt Buying Practices Act case.

On January 19, 2023, Plaintiff Persolve Legal Group, LLP (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Myeong Lee (“Defendant”) and Does 1-100 for:

1.                  Open Book Account

2.                  Money Lent

3.                  Account Stated

On June 2, 2023, Defendant’s default was entered.

An Order to Show Cause Re: Default Judgment is set for September 6, 2023.

Discussion

Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is denied without prejudice. The following defects are noted:

1.         Plaintiff seeks $27,806.56 as the “demand of complaint” set forth on Judicial Council Form CIV-105; this amount is referenced in Paragraphs 5, 17, 20 and 23 of the complaint. However, the caption page, Paragraphs 5, 18, 21, 23 and 24 and Paragraph 1 of the prayer in Plaintiff’s complaint identify $26,106.56 as the “[a]mount [d]emanded” or “the amount “now due and owing.” In actions for money damages a default judgment is limited to the amount demanded in the complaint. (See Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.) The amount demanded in the complaint is determined both from the prayer and from the damage allegations in the complaint. (National Diversified Services, Inc. v. Bernstein (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 410, 417-418).

2.         There are discrepancies with respect to certain amounts set forth on Judicial Council Form CIV-105 and the proposed judgment. The proposed judgment lists $0 in attorney’s fees and costs and $8,700.87 in interest; however, Judicial Council Form CIV-105 identifies interest as $9,484.70, costs as $556.17 and attorney’s fees as $960.00. These discrepancies must be reconciled.