Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case 21PSCV01002 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 21PSCV01002, Date: 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21PSCV01002 Hearing Date: May 4, 2023 Dept: G

Plaintiff 99 Shopping Center LLC’s Application for Default Judgment

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff 99 Shopping Center LLC’s Application for Default Judgment is TENTATIVELY GRANTED and the court will enter default judgment for Plaintiff in the amount of $358,057.31 upon Plaintiff’s dismissal of the Doe Defendants in this action pursuant to Rule 3.1800, subdivision (a)(7) of the California Rules of Court.

BACKGROUND

This is a breach of lease agreement action. On December 16, 2019, Plaintiff 99 Shopping Center LLC entered into a written shopping center lease agreement with Defendant Kai Pan in which Plaintiff agreed to rent shopping premises in Rowland Heights to Defendant for a 4-year term. On September 1, 2020, Plaintiff alleges Defendant breached the lease agreement by failing to make rent payments and subsequently abandoning the property.

On December 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant and Does 1-20, alleging breach of contract.

On March 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) against same defendants alleging the same cause of action. On June 23, the court entered default against Defendant. Plaintiff then filed an application for default judgment on August 29. On September 14, the court denied Plaintiff’s application with prejudice, finding Plaintiff’s FAC was insufficiently pled.

On October 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) against same defendants alleging the same causes of action. Plaintiff served Defendant via publication in January and February of 2023.

On March 24, 2023, default was entered against Defendant. On May 1, 2023, Plaintiff submitted the present application for default judgment.

An OSC Re: Default Judgment and case management conference are set for May 4, 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 $358,080.59, including $277,173.44 in damages, $73,509.92 in interest, $4,683 in attorney fees, and $2,714.23 in costs. Because the court finds Plaintiff has submitted sufficient evidence, the court tentatively GRANTS Plaintiff’s application for default judgment in the reduced amount of $358,057.32 for the following reasons.

First, the court reduces Plaintiff’s request for attorney fees to $4,661.73 pursuant to Local Rule 3.214.

Second, the court reduces Plaintiff’s request for prejudgment interest to $73,507.92 (10% of $277,173.44 divided by 365 = $75.9379287671 per diem multiplied by 968 days (9/1/2020 – 4/27/2023) = $73,507.915046553).

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s application for default judgment is TENTATIVELY GRANTED and the court will enter default judgment for Plaintiff in the amount of $358,057.32 upon Plaintiff’s dismissal of the Doe Defendants in this action pursuant to Rule 3.1800, subdivision (a)(7) of the California Rules of Court.