Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 21PSCV00813, Date: 2023-03-14 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: 21PSCV00813    Hearing Date: March 14, 2023    Dept: G

Plaintiff Kramer, Fox & Associates, Inc.’s Application for Default Judgment

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Kramer, Fox & Associates, Inc.’s Application for Default Judgment

is DENIED without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

This is a collections action arising from a payout agreement. On July 13, 2021, Plaintiff Kramer, Fox & Associates, Inc. entered into a written agreement with Jorge Raygoza (Raygoza) and Custom Cabinets and Doors, Inc. (Custom Cabinets, collectively as Defendants) in which Plaintiff agreed to settle Defendants’ account in exchange for Defendants making a good faith payment of $3,000 and 32 additional monthly payments of $1,000. Plaintiff alleges Defendants breached the agreement by failing to make payments on October 1.

On October 7, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants and Does 1-10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract and (2) common counts.

On October 8, 2021, Plaintiff’s registered process server personally served Custom Cabinets at their South El Monte address. On October 18, Plaintiff’s registered process server served Raygoza through substitute service as the same South El Monte address.

On January 25, 2022, default was entered against Defendants. On April 25, Plaintiff submitted an application for default judgment. On July 25, the court denied Plaintiff’s application.

On January 9, 2022, Plaintiff submitted an application for default judgment. On January 12, the court denied Plaintiff’s application. The same day, Plaintiff submitted the present application.

An OSC Re: Default Judgment is set for March 14, 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 $76,359, including $67,256 in damages, $8,367 in interest, and $736 in costs. The amount of requested damages in a default judgment application cannot exceed the amount requested in the complaint. (Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.) Although Plaintiff’s Complaint requests damages of $67,255.81, Plaintiff’s previous application for default judgment requested $71,255.81 in damages and was denied for that reason. While Plaintiff’s updated default packet includes declarations that correctly list damages as $67,255.81 (Chan Decl., ¶ 4-5; King Decl., ¶ 8.), Plaintiff inexplicably added an extra nineteen (19) cents to the requested damages on the CIV-100 application by requesting $67,256. Because Plaintiff’s application requests damages in excess of the amount allowed by law, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s application without prejudice.

CONCLUSION

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