Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 21PSCV00430, Date: 2023-01-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21PSCV00430    Hearing Date: January 12, 2023    Dept: G

Plaintiff Jesse Mejia’s Application for Default Judgment

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Jesse Mejia’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

This is a contractual fraud action. On August 2, 2019, Plaintiff Jesse Mejia entered into a written contract with Ronald Lewis Wood, Jr. (Wood) and 5150 Restoration (collectively, Defendants) in which Defendants agreed to perform custom ground up restoration and modification of Plaintiff’s 1965 Chevy C10 for $16,500. After Plaintiff paid a $14,850 deposit, Plaintiff alleges Wood used the money for personal uses, swindled Plaintiff’s money, and failed to perform under the contract. In addition, Plaintiff alleges Defendants stole or damaged parts from Plaintiff’s vehicle including the engine, transmission, brake booster, speedometer, alternator, exterior stainless trim pieces, bumper, trunk ornaments, electrical wiring, and an after-market stereo system.

On May 24, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants and Does 1-10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract, (2) common counts, and (3) fraud.

On June 11, 2021, Plaintiff personally served Defendants in San Dimas.  

On August 11, 2021, default was entered against Wood. On October 14, default was entered against 5150 Restoration. On August 9, 2022, Plaintiff submitted an application for default judgment and the court continued hearings on August 9 and October 5.

On October 17, 2022, Plaintiff submitted the present application for default judgment.  

An OSC Re: Default Judgment is set for January 12, 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 $87,085, including $86,500 in damages and $585 in costs.¿For the following reasons, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s application without prejudice.

First, Plaintiff has failed to dismiss the Doe defendants in this action or establish grounds for a separate judgment against specified parties under Code of Civil Procedure section 579 and Rule 3.1800, subdivision (a)(7) of the California Rules of Court, as default judgment is not sought against all defendants in this action. 

Second, while Plaintiff filed an updated CIV-100 application for default judgment, Plaintiff did not submit updated declarations to support that application. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 585, subd. (d); Taliaferro v. Hoogs (1963) 219 Cal.App.2d 559, 560.)

CONCLUSION

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