Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 19STCV14459, Date: 2022-10-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV14459    Hearing Date: October 19, 2022    Dept: A

Plaintiffs’ Application for Default Judgment

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs’ Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

Background

This case arises from breach of habitability. Plaintiffs Carmelita Gomez, Karen Gomez, Rayleen Zamarron, Alfredo Zamarron, Stephanie Holguin, John Leyva and Jennifer Leyva (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) are tenants at 1736 South Hamilton Boulevard, Pomona, California, 91766 (“Subject Property”). Plaintiffs allege that the Subject Property suffers from numerous habitability issues, including rat and roach infestation, severe water leaks and mold, and crumbling walls, and that Defendants have failed to maintain the Subject Property.

On April 25, 2019, Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendants Maz Management LLC, Paritosh Mazumder, and Does 1 through 20 for:

1.      Negligence,

2.      Nuisance,

3.      Breach of Lease, and

4.      Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability

On July 3, 2019, Defendants filed a Demurrer, which was overruled on January 30, 2020.

On February 20, 2020, Defendants filed their Answer.

On July 5, 2022, the court struck Defendant’s Answer. The court issued the following Minute Order:

Order to Show Cause Re: Defense Failure to Appear on 2/14/2022 and Failure to Retain Counsel The matter is called for hearing. There is no appearance by or for the defense. Counsel for Plaintiff requests the defendant's answer be stricken. This being the defense 2nd failure to appear, the Court grants plaintiff's request and orders the Answer filed on 2/20/2020 Stricken. Plaintiff's Counsel is to submit Request for Default and Default Judgment for the Court's review.

On August 3, 2022, default was entered against Defendants MAZ MANAGEMENT LLC, a California limited liability corporation; PARITOSH MAZUMDER, an individual.

On September 7, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the instant application for entry of default judgment.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 585 permits entry of a judgment after a Defendant has failed to timely answer after being properly served.  A party seeking judgment on the default by the Court must file a Request for Court Judgment, and: (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 CCP § 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. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1800.) 

Discussion

Plaintiffs seek entry of default judgment against Defendants in the amount of $195,461.40. The break-down is as follows:

Damages:             $190,740.

Attorney Fees:     $3,979.40,[1] and

Costs:                   $924.00

Defects

1.      Lack of Evidence

Plaintiffs provide evidence (via photos) of rodents, termites, and roaches to corroborate their allegation about unhabitable living conditions. However, Plaintiffs do not provide adequate evidence that “as a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of Defendants’ failure to correct the uninhabitable conditions present at the Property, Plaintiffs suffered physical injuries including skin rashes, insect bites, allergies, upper respiratory infections, physical pain and discomfort, great mental anguish and emotional distress including anxiety, annoyance, trouble sleeping, fear, stress, and inconvenience, as well as destruction of their personal property and lost wages.” (Complaint ¶¶21, 25, 36) (emphasis added). For example, there is no medical documentation to support the physical, mental, and emotional damages sought by Plaintiffs. Moreover, there is no evidence of lost wages (i.e., pay stubs for comparison of how the conditions affected work, absences from work, etc.). Therefore, to the extent that Plaintiffs each request $24,000 for such distress, they have not provided adequate documentary evidence.

2.      Joint and Several Liability

Plaintiffs request the court to award damages jointly and severally against the property management company, Maz Management, LLC, and the property owner, Paritosh Mazumder. Plaintiffs, however, have not explained why joint and several liability is appropriate.

Conclusion