Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case 20PSCV00883 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 20PSCV00883, Date: 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 20PSCV00883 Hearing Date: May 17, 2023 Dept: G

Plaintiff City of El Monte’s Application for Default Judgment

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff City of El Monte’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

This is a nuisance abatement action. On June 28, 2017, the El Monte Police Department were executing a search warrant at a property in El Monte when they discovered a commercial marijuana grow operation that was being conducted illegally.

On December 22, 2020, the City of El Monte (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Shida Deng (Deng), Xiu Ying Feng (Feng), and Does 1-100 alleging the following causes of action: (1) narcotics abatement, (2) public nuisance, (3) violation of El Monte municipal code, (4) violation of Unfair Competition Law, and (5) violation of MAUCRSA. On February 14, 2022, Plaintiff’s registered process server personally served Deng and Feng in Rosemead.

On April 12, 2022, default was entered against Deng and Feng (collectively, Defendants). On February 14, 2023, Plaintiff submitted the present application for default judgment.

An OSC Re: Default Judgment is set for May 17, 2023.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 585 permits entry of a default judgment after a party has filed to timely respond or appear. 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 or an application for separate judgment under CCP § 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (7) exhibits as necessary; and (8) a request for attorneys’ fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (Cal. Rules of Court 3.1800.)

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff seeks default judgment against Defendant in the total amount of $939,735.63, including $928,290 in damages, $9,273.50 in attorney fees, and $2,172.13 in costs.¿For the following reasons, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s application without prejudice.

“Plaintiffs in a default judgment proceeding must prove they are entitled to the damages claimed.” (Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 288, quoting Barragan v. Banco BCH (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 283, 302.) A party may not obtain damages in a default judgment that exceed the amount requested in the complaint. (Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 826.) In determining the maximum amount of damages allowable, “courts must look to the prayer of the complaint¿or¿to ‘allegations in the body of the complaint of the damages sought’ to determine whether a defendant has been informed of the ‘maximum liability’ he or she will face for choosing to default.” (People ex rel. Lockyer v. Brar (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 659, 667, quoting National Diversified Services, Inc. v. Bernstein (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 410, 417-418.)

In this case, Plaintiff’s default judgment application for $928,290 in damages exceeds the demand in the Complaint, which appears to only request $654,510 in damages ($25,000 (Prayer, ¶ 5) + $178,000 (Prayer, ¶ 12) + $445,000 (Prayer, ¶ 15) + $6,510 (Prayer, ¶ 20)). Furthermore, Plaintiff’s supporting declaration appears to request only $693,390 in damages ($25,000 (Welch Decl., ¶ 23) + $89,000 (Welch Decl., ¶ 24) + $579,390 (Welch Decl., ¶ 25)), which is less than the default judgment application amount but more than the Complaint. Because Plaintiff provides conflicting numbers for damages that both exceed the amount requested in the Complaint, Plaintiff’s application for default is denied.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s application for default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.