Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 22PSCV00684, Date: 2023-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV00684    Hearing Date: February 7, 2023    Dept: G

Plaintiffs Maria I. Medina and Ramon P. Cruz’s Application for Default Judgment

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs Maria I. Medina and Ramon P. Cruz’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

This is an action to quiet title. On June 21, 2006, Plaintiffs Maria I. Medina and Ramon P. Cruz allege they acquired title to real estate in Pomona (hereafter, Pomona property) by purchasing the Pomona property from its prior owners and pursuant to a grant deed recorded on July 28. In 2022, when Plaintiffs were preparing to sell the Pomona property, Plaintiffs discovered a grant deed that was recorded on May 21, 2009 and purported to grant a 20% interest in the Pomona property to “LMC Holdings Group & Maria Medina.” Plaintiffs allege this deed was fraudulent.   

On July 7, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against LMC Holdings Group (Defendant); Adela Garcia (Garcia); all persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the property; and Does 1-100, alleging the following causes of action: (1) quiet title, (2) fraud and deceit, (3) conversion, (4) unjust enrichment/quantum meruit, (5) rescission/cancellation of deed, (6) civil conspiracy, and (7) declaratory relief. From July 30 to August 20, Plaintiffs provided service through publication. On August 11, Plaintiffs dismissed Garcia from this action.

On September 27, 2022, default was entered against Defendant. On December 8, Plaintiffs submitted the present application for default judgment.  

A default prove-up hearing is set for February 7, 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 $14,130.62, including cancellation of the 2009 grant deed to Defendant, $12,581.56 in attorney fees, and $1,549.06 in costs. For the following reasons, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s application without prejudice. 

First, Plaintiff does not provide any statutory authority or contractual provision to support the award of attorney fees.

Second, Plaintiff failed to dismiss the Doe defendants and “all unknown persons” in this action or establish grounds for a separate judgment against specified parties under Code of Civil Procedure section 579 and Rule 3.1800, subdivision (a)(7) of the California Rules of Court, as Plaintiff only applied for default judgment against Defendant LMC Holdings Group. 

CONCLUSION

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