Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 21STCV21142, Date: 2023-04-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV21142    Hearing Date: April 5, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Plaintiff Deborah Lynn Copher         

RESPONDING PARTY:        n/a

Request for Court Judgment by Default

Plaintiff Deborah Lynn Copher (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Patrick Flynn (“Defendant”) on June 7, 2021, alleging four causes of action for (1) conversion, (2) unjust enrichment, (3) breach of bailment, and (4) negligence.

Defendant’s default was entered on December 21, 2021.

On January 18, 2023, the court denied Plaintiff’s request for court judgment by default because (1) Plaintiff did not request a specified amount of damages against Defendant in the Complaint, and therefore the court could not enter judgment as requested, and (2) there were various defects with Plaintiff’s request for judgment, including (i) Plaintiff’s failure to submit a proposed form of judgment on Judicial Council form JUD-100, (ii) Plaintiff’s failure to dismiss Doe defendants 1 through 10, and (iii) Plaintiff’s failure to identify a statute or agreement by the parties entitling Plaintiff to obtain an award of attorney’s fees.

The court notes that, on March 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed a second request for court judgment by default.  Plaintiff requests the court enter judgment against Defendant in the amount of $111,171, consisting of $107,526 in damages, $5,842.40 in interest, $585 in costs, and $2,500 in attorney’s fees.

The court denies Plaintiff’s request for court judgment by default.

First, Plaintiff did not request a specified amount of damages against Defendant in the Complaint.  (Compl., Prayer, pp. 7:21-8:20 [praying for “damages in an amount to be proved at trial” and restitution in unspecified amount].)  “‘[A] default judgment greater than the amount specifically demanded is void as beyond the court’s jurisdiction.’  Where no amount of damages is demanded any amount awarded is by definition greater than the amount demanded.”  (Falahati v. Kondo (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 823, 830-831.)  The court therefore cannot award Plaintiff any amount of damages.  (Ibid.)

Second, there are various defects in Plaintiff’s request for judgment.  

Although Plaintiff has submitted a proposed Judgment (made on Judicial Council form JUD-100), the proposed order reflects a total judgment of $116,653.40.  (March 1, 2023 JUD-100, ¶ 6.)  However, Plaintiff’s Request for Court Judgment (made on Judicial Council form CIV-100) requests judgment in the total amount of $111,171.  (March 1, 2023 CIV-100, ¶ 2, subd. (f).)  Further, while Plaintiff requests $585 in costs, Plaintiff has not completed field 7 (“Memorandum of costs”) of the Request for Court Judgment as required.  Plaintiff has not dismissed Doe defendants 1 through 10.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1800, subd. (a)(7).)  Plaintiff also requests $2,500 in attorney’s fees, but has not identified a statute or agreement of the parties entitling her to an award of attorney’s fees.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1800, subd. (a)(9).)

The court therefore denies plaintiff Deborah Lynn Copher’s request for court judgment by default.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  April 5, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court