Judge Peter A. Hernandez, Case Number: 23PSCV00643, Date: 2024-05-22 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 23PSCV00643, Date: 2024-05-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV00643 Hearing Date: May 22, 2024 Dept: K

Plaintiff MHC 30 (Walnut CA) LLC’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

Background

This is an unlawful detainer action involving the commercial premises located at 975 Fairway Drive, Walnut, CA 91789 (“subject property”).

On March 3, 2023, Plaintiff MHC 30 (Walnut CA) LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer against Albert Halim dba The Wheel Supply, Inc. (Defendant”) and Does 1-10.

On July 24, 2023, Defendant’s default was entered and on August 10, 2023, a clerk’s default judgment for possession only was entered.

An Order to Show Cause Re: Default Judgment is set for May 22, 2024.

Discussion

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

1. The only declaration submitted in support of the instant default prove-up application is from Plaintiff’s attorney Eric Leenerts (“Leenerts”). No declarations are submitted from any members of Plaintiff. It is unclear to the court how Leenerts would have personal knowledge of the underlying facts and be capable of authenticating the Industrial Lease Agreement. Further, “[a]n affidavit based on information and belief is hearsay and must be disregarded.” (Baustert v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1275, fn. 5 [quotations and citation omitted].) Paragraph 5 and the first sentence of Paragraph 10 are based on information and belief.

2. Plaintiff seeks $19,932.00 in attorney’s fees, but has not provided the court with any fee statements. The court, moreover, is inclined to award attorney’s fees in accordance with the default schedule set forth in Local Rule 3.214, as the instant case appears to be a straightforward unlawful detainer case.

3. Plaintiff’s Judicial Council Form CIV-100 Request for Entry of Default filed July 24, 2023 lists attorney’s fees as $13,098.00 and costs as $1,527.92 and does not reference holdover damages whatsoever. The proposed judgment seeks $25,600.00 in holdover damages, $1,847.92 in costs and $19,932.00 in attorney’s fees. These discrepancies must be reconciled.

4. The court will not entertain piecemeal submissions. Plaintiff is instructed to comply with California Rules of Court rule 3.1800 with any future submission.

5. Plaintiff’s proposed judgment utilizes Judicial Council optional Form UD-110 [New January 1, 2003. In the event Plaintiff elects to resubmit its proposed judgment utilizing Judicial Council optional Form UD-110, Plaintiff should submit same on “UD-110 [Rev. January 1, 2024]”.