Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 22PSCV00596, Date: 2023-02-14 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 the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 22PSCV00596    Hearing Date: February 14, 2023    Dept: G

Plaintiff Connie Woo’s Application for Default Judgment

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Connie Woo’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

This is a collections action. On November 29, 2021, Plaintiff Connie Woo entered into a written agreement with Defendant Duoduo Hong, also known as Duodua Hong, in which Plaintiff agreed to sell Defendant a manufactured home, subject to a payment plan. Plaintiff alleges Defendant breached the agreement on February 23, 2022, by failing to make payments under the agreement and refusing to allow Plaintiff to regain possession of the manufactured home.

On June 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed a verified complaint against Defendant and Does 1-25, alleging default under a written security agreement and possession of collateral and/or an order for sale. On August 24, Defendant was personally served by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department in Walnut.

On September 27, 2022, default was entered against Defendant. On February 7, 2023, Plaintiff submitted the present application for default judgment.  

An OSC Re: Default Judgment is set for February 14, 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 $194,813, including $177,427 in damages, $8,291 in interest, $8,500 in attorney fees, and $595 in costs.¿For the following reasons, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s application without prejudice.

First, the court notes Plaintiff’s request for damages exceeds the demand in the complaint. 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.) Here, Plaintiff’s complaint requests damages in the amount of $175,000. (Complaint, ¶ 15, Prayer, ¶ 1.) However, Plaintiff’s application for default requests $177,427 damages, which includes $5,000 in special damages not alleged in the complaint. (See Summary of Case, p. 7.)

Second, the court notes discrepancies in Plaintiff’s request for damages. While the total sum of the damages requested are $194,813, Plaintiff’s CIV-100 application lists total damages as $194,812. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s summary of the case conflicts with the CIV-100 application by listing $172,426.70 in principal and $8,290.65 in interest due.

Third, while Plaintiff resubmitted a new CIV-100 that requests a court judgment instead of a clerk’s judgment, Plaintiff filed to resubmit an updated proposed judgment as Plaintiff’s current proposed judgment still references a clerk’s judgment.

CONCLUSION

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