Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case Number: 21PSCV01053, Date: 2023-11-01 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 21PSCV01053, Date: 2023-11-01 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 a tentative ruling by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 21PSCV01053 Hearing Date: November 1, 2023 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 GRANTED in the reduced amount of $40,589.81.

BACKGROUND

This is a breach of contract and fraud action. In March 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. The Whites 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 the Whites’ money was forwarded to their loan servicer, Home Matters USA kept the rest of the money. As a result, the Whites’ mortgage became several months delinquent and on the verge of foreclosure.

On December 16, 2021, the Whites filed a verified complaint against Home Matters USA 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 December 20, the Whites’ process server served Home Matters USA with substitute service in Los Angeles.

On March 18, 2022, default was entered against Home Matters USA. On September 19, the Whites submitted an application for default judgment. On September 27, the Whites amended the Complaint to reflect that Home Matters USA was a business name for Defendant South West Consulting Enterprises, Inc. On December 15, the court denied the Whites’ application for default judgment.

On March 27, 2023, the Whites submitted a second application for default judgment. But on April 26, the court directed the Whites to reserve Home Matters USA under their correct name and resubmit their application if Home Matters USA failed to appear. On the same day, the Whites’ process server served Home Matters USA with substitute service in Los Angeles.

On July 21, 2023, default was entered against Home Matters USA. On July 24, the Whites filed another application for default judgment.

An OSC Re: Default Judgment is set for November 1, 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

The Whites seek default judgment against Home Matters USA in the total amount of $50,592.30, including $42,474.70 in damages, $7,867.60 in interest, and $250 in costs. Because the court finds the Whites have submitted sufficient evidence, the court GRANTS their application with the following modifications.

First, while the Whites seek $42,474.70 in damages, the maximum amount requested in their Complaint is only $32,474.70. (Complaint, ¶ 8.) A party may not obtain damages in a default judgment that exceed the amount requested in the complaint. (Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 826.) In determining the maximum amount of damages allowable, “courts must look to the prayer of the complaint¿or¿to ‘allegations in the body of the complaint of the damages sought’ to determine whether a defendant has been informed of the ‘maximum liability’ he or she will face for choosing to default.” (People ex rel. Lockyer v. Brar (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 659, 667, quoting National Diversified Services, Inc. v. Bernstein (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 410, 417-418.) Allegations “according to proof” are insufficient in a default judgment proceeding as they do not inform defendants of their maximum liability. (Yu v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 1024, 1032.) Thus, because the Whites only requested $32,474.70, the court will not award damages in excess of that amount.

Second, while the Whites request $7,867.60 in interest, the court finds the correct amount of interest is $7,865.11. Accordingly, the total judgment awarded to the Whites is $40,589.81.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Whites’ application for default judgment is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $40,589.81. Plaintiffs to submit a revised judgment consistent with the court's ruling.