Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case 21PSCV00471 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 21PSCV00471, Date: 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21PSCV00471 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 November 8, 2018, 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 June 7, 2021, the City of El Monte (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Dan Tu Cun (Cun), Jian Zou (Zou), Eagle Home Mortgage, LLC (Eagle Home Mortgage), 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 6, 2022, Plaintiff’s registered process server served Cun and Zou with substitute service in El Monte. On February 15, Plaintiff’s process server personally served Eagle Home Mortgage in North Palm Beach, Florida.

On May 27, 2022, default was entered against Cun and Zou. On February 16, 2023, default was entered against Eagle Home Mortgage. On April 25, 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 Cun and Zou in the total amount of $2,885,276.19, including $2,873,250 in damages, $7,571.75 in attorney fees, and $4,454.44 in costs.¿For the following reasons, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s application without prejudice.

First, Plaintiff has failed to dismiss or establish grounds for a separate judgment against specified parties pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 579 and Rule 3.1800, subdivision (a)(7) of the California Rules of Court as Plaintiff only applied for default judgment against Cun and Zou, not Eagle Home Mortgage.

Second, “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 $2,873,250 in damages exceeds the demand in the Complaint, which appears to only request $1,309,010 in damages ($25,000 (Prayer, ¶ 5) + $365,000 (Prayer, ¶ 12) + $912,500 (Prayer, ¶ 15) + $6,510 (Prayer, ¶ 20)). Specifically, Plaintiff increased the demand under the fourth and fifth cause of action from $919,010 to $2,376,150. (Prayer, ¶ 15, 20; Welch Decl., ¶ 25.) Because Plaintiff’s request exceeds 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.