Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 21PSCV01053, Date: 2022-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21PSCV01053    Hearing Date: December 15, 2022    Dept: G

Plaintiffs Shirley White and Gerald White’s Application for Default Judgment

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs Shirley White and Gerald White’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

This is a breach of contract and fraud action. On March 6, 2020, Plaintiffs Shirley White and Gerald White retained the services of Defendant Home Matters USA to modify the mortgage encumbering their property in Baldwin Park. Plaintiffs paid $2,314.58 at intake followed by monthly payments of approximately $2,000 for a total amount of $32,474.70. While less than one-third of Plaintiffs’ money was forwarded to their loan servicer, Defendant kept the rest of the money. As a result, Plaintiffs’ mortgage became several months delinquent and on the verge of foreclosure.

On December 16, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a verified complaint against Defendant and Does 1-50 alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract, (2) intentional misrepresentation, (3) negligent misrepresentation, (4) fraudulent concealment, (5) violations of Civil Code section 2944.7, (6) breach of fiduciary duty, and (7) conversion.

On March 18, 2022, default was entered against Defendant. On September 19, Plaintiffs submitted the present application for default judgment.  

An OSC Re: Default Judgment is set for December 15, 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 $107,673.50, including $97,423.50 in special damages, $10,000 in general damages, and $250 in costs. For the following reasons, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s application without prejudice. 

First, Plaintiffs’ request for $97,423.50 in special damages and $10,000 in general damages exceeds the demand in the complaint, which only lists damages totaling $32,474.70. (Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.)

Second, Plaintiffs have failed to serve a statement of damages compliant with Code of Civil Procedure section 425.115 before default was entered against Defendant.

Last, Plaintiffs have not provided any evidence of Defendant’s financial condition as required when requesting punitive damages. (Farmers & Merchants Trust Co. v. Vanetik (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 638, 648.)

CONCLUSION

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