Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 20PSCV00883, Date: 2023-11-09 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 a tentative ruling 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: November 9, 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 GRANTED in the reduced amount of $699.114.45.

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 (the City) filed a complaint against Shida Deng, Xiu Ying 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, the City’s registered process server personally served Deng and Feng in Rosemead.

On April 12, 2022, default was entered against Deng and Feng. On February 14, 2023, the City submitted an application for default judgment that the court denied on May 17. On July 11, the City submitted another application for default judgment and resubmitted the application on August 7. After the court requested additional declarations on October 3, the City instead submitted the present application on November 6.

An OSC Re: Default Judgment is set for November 9, 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

The City seeks default judgment against Deng and Feng in the total amount of $708,911.25, including $686,020 in damages, $18,547 in attorney fees, and $4,344.25 in costs. Because the City has provided sufficient evidence, the court GRANTS the City’s application for default with the following modification. While the City requests $18,547 in attorney fees, the City failed to provide an accounting or itemization of how the fees were incurred. Because the City failed to do so, the court cannot determine if this amount was reasonable.

Thus, the court reduces the requested attorney fees to $8,750.20 in accordance with Local Rule 3.214.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the City’s application for default judgment is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $699.114.45.