Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case 21PSCV00961 2023-02-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 21PSCV00961, Date: 2023-02-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21PSCV00961 Hearing Date: February 8, 2023 Dept: G

Plaintiff L.A. web, Inc.’s Application for Default Judgment

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff L.A. web, Inc.’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

This is a breach of contract action arising from a commercial lease agreement. On January 1, 2013, Plaintiff L.A. web, Inc. entered into a written agreement with Defendant LA Media Link Group, Inc. in which Plaintiff agreed to lease a portion of a building in El Monte to Defendant in exchange for a monthly rent of $6,000. On February 15, 2014, Defendant stopped paying the printing and delivery newspaper fee. Defendant also did not repay money borrowed from Plaintiff on February 21, 2017 and did not pay rent since June 30, 2019.

On November 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant, alleging breach of contract. On February 22, 2022, default was entered against the Defendant.

Plaintiff applied for default judgment on April 22, 2022. On August 17, the court denied Plaintiff’s application without prejudice, noting the following defects: (1) declaration not properly made; (2) action time-barred; (3) insufficient support for claims of unpaid newspaper fees and loans; (4) unclear demand calculations; and (5) no basis for attorney’s fees.

On November 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) against the same Defendant. On November 16, the court denied another application for default judgment without prejudice. On January 26, 2023, default was entered against Defendant.

An OSC Re: Default Judgment is set for February 8, 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 $3,600,029.63, including $3,593,537.43 in damages, $6,000 in attorney fees, and $492.20 in costs. ¿For the following reasons, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s application without prejudice.

First, Plaintiff fails to establish an entitlement to attorney fees. While Plaintiff provided a copy of the bill statement from Plaintiff’s counsel, that is insufficient to establish Plaintiff’s entitlement to attorney fees as Plaintiff needs to either provide a statute or contractual provision from the lease agreement that allows the award of attorney fees to Plaintiff.

Second, Plaintiff still fails justify the amount of damages requested. “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.) While Plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging an additional cause of action for unjust enrichment to support Plaintiff’s request for $2,605,669.60 in “printing and delivery newspaper fee” and $739,656.63 in “money borrowed,” Plaintiff’s FAC is devoid of any pleaded facts to support this request. Thus, the court must rely solely on Plaintiff’s declaration and evidence.

In Plaintiff’s declaration, Plaintiff states Defendant stopped paying Plaintiff for service fees for newspaper printing and delivery work since February 15, 2014. (Chang Decl., ¶ 1.) However, Plaintiff does not provide any further detail, including when and how parties entered into this agreement and what the terms of the agreement were. Plaintiff also claims Defendant had been suffering from a cash flow shortage in February 2017 and that “[t]o help the Defendant got through this difficult time, Plaintiff lent money to Defendant without any interest.” (Chang Decl., ¶ 1.) Plaintiff does not provide when and how parties entered into this agreement and what the terms and amount of the loan were. Plaintiff also does not state if Defendant made any payments on this loan. Plaintiff claims to have sent a collection letter about these fees on October 18, 2021 “which was reviewed and accepted by Defendant” but does not provide a copy of this letter, describe its terms, or support the claim that Defendant reviewed and accepted the demand letter. (Chang Decl., ¶ 1.) Lastly, the court notes Plaintiff’s declaration includes exhibits but does not clearly authenticate them and does not clearly identify which exhibits are which - - as the exhibits are not labeled or numbered.

CONCLUSION

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