Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 21PSCV00672, Date: 2022-12-13 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) 620-3071 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 21PSCV00672    Hearing Date: December 13, 2022    Dept: G

Plaintiff Harbor Distributing, LLC’s Application for Default Judgment

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Harbor Distributing, LLC’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

This is a breach of contract action. On December 22, 2018, Plaintiff Harbor Distributing, LLC entered into a written agreement with Whittier Distributors, Inc. (Whittier Distributors), doing business as East LA Wholesale Beverages, in which Whittier Distributors agreed to pay Plaintiff all amounts due as invoiced. Defendant Jorge Alvarez, Jr. signed a personal guaranty in support of the agreement. Whittier Distributors failed to pay all amounts due, amounting to alleged damages of $90,000.00.

On August 19, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Whittier Distributors, Defendant, and Does 1-10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract, (2) open book account, (3) account stated, (4) reasonable value, and (5) breach of personal guarantee.

On November 1, 2021, default was entered against Defendant and Plaintiff submitted an application for default judgment, On January 7, 2022, the court denied Plaintiff’s initial application, noting Plaintiff failed to dismiss all defendants or submit application for separate judgment and did not provide a statement of account reflecting all charges and credits.

On January 21, 2022, Plaintiff resubmitted an application for default judgment. On June 8, the court again denied Plaintiff’s application, noting Plaintiff still failed to submit supporting documentation. Plaintiff submitted a third application on July 20 that the court again denied on September 22, noting Plaintiff still failed to explain why Defendant owes $90,000.    

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

An OSC Re: Default Packet is set for December 13, 2022.    

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 $119,154.18, including $90,000 in damages, $25,979.18 in interest, $2,690 in attorney fees, and $485 in costs. Because Plaintiff has not submitted interest calculations to support the requested interest as required by Rule 3.1800(a)(3) of the California Rules of Court, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s application without prejudice.

CONCLUSION

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