Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 23PSCV01611, Date: 2024-05-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV01611    Hearing Date: May 6, 2024    Dept: K

Plaintiff Granvista Construction Corporation’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice [see below].

Background   

Plaintiff Granvista Construction Corporation (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:

On May 16, 2022, Plaintiff entered into a written agreement with JM Creative Investments LLC (“JM Creative”), Alan Robertson (“Robertson”), Peninsula Retail Partners V LLC (“Peninsula”), Brett Del Valle (“Del Valle”) and NES Investment LLC (“NES”), wherein Plaintiff agreed to perform various tenant improvement work at the property located at 2200 S. Azusa Avenue in West Covina (“property”) in exchange for $346,399.00. Additional change orders were issued with the work Plaintiff performed. Plaintiff is still owed $25,919.18.

On June 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, asserting causes of action against JM Creative, Roberston, Peninsula, Del Valle, NES, Ploutos Inc. (“Ploutos”), and Does 1-20 for:

1.                  Breach of Contract

2.                  Common Counts

3.                  Unjust Enrichment

4.                  Quantum Meruit

On August 22, 2023, NES’s default was entered. On October 31, 2023, Plaintiff dismissed “all Defendants other than NES INVESTMENTS LLC,” without prejudice.

An Order to Show Cause Re: Default Judgment is set for May 6, 2024.

Discussion

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

1.         Plaintiff has not provided any interest computations. (Cal. Rules Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a)(3).)

2.         Plaintiff seeks $1,200.00 in attorney’s fees; however, Plaintiff has failed to identify any language in the contract providing for attorney’s fees.

3.         The three contracts set forth in Exhibit 1 to Alvaro Garcia’s (“Garcia”) declaration list grand total amounts of $83,101.00, $139,998.00 and $123,340.00, respectively. These amounts, in turn, total $346,439.00, not $346,399.00 as stated in Paragraph ¶ 6 of Garcia’s declaration.

4.         Garcia references four change orders “issued for additional work totaling $17,426.48,” but fails to attach same.

5.         Garcia is requested to attach a statement of account and billing statement(s) to any amended declaration, to the extent they exist.