Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 22PSCV00378, Date: 2023-03-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV00378    Hearing Date: March 23, 2023    Dept: G

Plaintiff Cathay Bank’s Application for Default Judgment

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Cathay Bank’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

This is a collections action arising from a business loan agreement. On April 6, 2021, Plaintiff Cathay Bank entered into a written agreement with Defendant Minsung Kim in which Plaintiff agreed to loan $49,957.99 to Defendant in exchange for Defendant making monthly payments. Plaintiff alleges Defendant breached the agreement by defaulting under the terms of the loan and failing to make payments due on August 15, 2021. As of April 14, 2022, Defendant’s outstanding balance totaled $47,130.60, along with accrued interest of $3,834.90, late charges of $649.80, and legal fees in the amount of $164.47.

On April 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant and Does 1-100, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of written promissory note and business loan agreement, (2) money lent, (3) account stated, and (4) indebtedness. On August 23, Plaintiff’s registered process server served Defendant via substitute service in Carson after four unsuccessful attempts to personally serve Defendant.

On October 5, 2022, default was entered against Defendant. On February 6, 2023, Plaintiff submitted the present application for default judgment. An OSC Re: Default Judgment is set for March 23, 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 $60,655.59, including $47,130.60 in damages, $9,104.36 in interest, $2,392.50 in attorney fees, and $770.43 in costs. For the following reasons, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s application without prejudice. 

First, the court notes the requested damages in Plaintiff’s CIV-100 application for default judgment do not add up as the total amount is $59,397.89, not $60,655.59.

Second, Plaintiff’s prejudgment interest calculations do not add up. While the court calculates prejudgment interest at $5,531.52, (8% of $47,130.60 divided by 365 = $10.32 per diem multiplied by 536 days (8/15/2021 – 2/2/2023)), Plaintiff requests $9,104.36. Plaintiff needs to provide clear interest rate calculations.

CONCLUSION

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