Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 21PSCV00313, Date: 2023-05-18 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: 21PSCV00313    Hearing Date: May 18, 2023    Dept: G

Plaintiff Isabel M. Coats’s Application for Default Judgment

Respondent: Defendant Gregory Ward (in default)

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Isabel M. Coats’s Application for Default Judgment is CONTINUED to a date to be determined at the hearing.

BACKGROUND

In this malicious prosecution action, Defendant Gregory Ward asked Plaintiff Isabel M. Coats, Defendant’s mother, to help finance the family cabin’s construction in Utah. While Plaintiff initially formed a partnership with Defendant and provided financial support for the project, Plaintiff agreed to be bought out and instead provided finances in the form of a loan. Defendant then claimed overpayment of Plaintiff and filed an unsuccessful breach of contract claim against Plaintiff while also failing to make payments on Plaintiff’s loan.

On April 21, 2021, Plaintiff, individually and through Isabelle Coats Newman as successor trustee of the inter vivos trust titled Isabel M. Coats Survivor’s Trust Created Under the Terms of the Isabel and Walter Coats Trust Restated January 26, 1994, filed a complaint against Defendant and Does 1 to 10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) malicious prosecution, (2) financial elder abuse, and (3) accounting.

On February 22, 2023, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion to impose terminating sanctions on Defendant after Defendant failed to comply with the court’s multiple discovery orders. As a result, Defendant’s answer was stricken, and default was entered against Defendant. On April 19, Plaintiff submitted the present application for a default judgment.

An OSC Re: Default Judgment is set for May 18, 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 $166,303.48, including $162,515.29 in attorney fees and $3,788.19 in costs. Because the court finds Plaintiff’s default judgment application is not complete, the court will CONTINUE the hearing on Plaintiff’s application.

In this case, Plaintiff’s CIV-100 Form does not state the damages requested and includes a note by Plaintiff claiming “Not applicable. Court to decide.” However, “[a] party seeking a default judgment on declarations must use mandatory form CIV–100.” (Holloway v. Quetel (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1425, 1432, citing Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a).) Thus, the initial damages requested in Plaintiff’s operative complaint and the damages requested in Plaintiff’s application for default judgment must be listed on the CIV-100 Form. Furthermore, Plaintiff failed to include costs in Item 2 of the CIV-100 Form even though Plaintiff requested them in the memorandum of costs on Item 7. Plaintiff also failed to properly itemize the requested costs in Item 7. Last, the court notes Plaintiff has failed to dismiss the Doe Defendants in this action pursuant to Rule 3.1800, subdivision (a)(7) of the California Rules of Court.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s application for default judgment is CONTINUED to a date to be determined at the hearing.  Plaintiff is ordered to submit a new and complete CIV-100 Form, along with all other documentation required by Rule 3.1800 of the California Rules of Court.

The court will not consider Defendant’s May 4, 2023 filings.  The May 4, 2023 filings are summarily STRICKEN as Defendant remains in default. (See Forbes v. Cameron Petroleums, Inc. (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 257, 262 [defaulted defendant has no standing to file responsive pleadings].)