Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case 21PSCV00430 2023-03-01 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 21PSCV00430, Date: 2023-03-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21PSCV00430 Hearing Date: March 1, 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. At a hearing on January 12, 2023, the court denied Plaintiff’s application and directed Plaintiff to resubmit the application through a supplemental declaration.

An OSC Re: Default Judgment is set for March 1, 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.)

DISCUSSION

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.

“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.) Here, Plaintiff first requests $16,500 as the contract price for restoration of Plaintiff’s truck. (Mejia Decl., ¶ 22.) However, Plaintiff also states Plaintiff received a discount from Defendant and ended up only paying $14,800. (Mejia Decl., ¶ 8.) Because Plaintiff provided evidence that the parties agreed on a lower price, Plaintiff has not established an entitlement to the original price of $16,500.

Second, Plaintiff requests $70,000 for the loss of Plaintiff’s truck. (Mejia Decl., ¶ 22.) However, the only evidence of the value of Plaintiff’s truck is Plaintiff’s assertion that “it would have likely been valued at approximately $89,900” according to a website named “ClassicCars.com.” (Mejia Decl., ¶ 21.) The website cited to by Plaintiff lists the sales price for a 1965 Chevrolet C10 in New Braunfels, Texas. (Mejia Decl., Ex. 7.) Subjective valuations by plaintiffs are usually insufficient to establish the actual value of a product. (Anderson v. Ford Motor Co. (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 946, 961, fn. 8.) And while websites like the Kelley Blue Book have been recognized by courts as a reliable source for providing market value of vehicles (People v. Jenkins (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 175, 185), Plaintiff has not provided any evidence establishing the same reliability for ClassicCars.com. Additionally, the ClassicCars.com advertisement does not include a date and references a truck for sale in Texas with an Arizona seller. Thus, Plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence to establish the value of Plaintiff’s truck.

CONCLUSION

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