Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 22PSCV00770, Date: 2023-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV00770    Hearing Date: February 6, 2023    Dept: G

Plaintiff SCP Distributors, LLC’s Application for Default Judgment

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff SCP Distributors, LLC’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

This is a breach of contract action arising from business credit agreement. On May 16, 2016, Plaintiff SCP Distributors, LLC entered into a written agreement with Defendant Pool Logic Design and Construction, Inc. (Pool Logic) in which Plaintiff agreed to provide a line of business credit to Pool Logic. The agreement was guaranteed by Pool Logic’s owner, Defendant Jeffrey Martija (Martija). On March 16, 2021, Plaintiff also executed a promissory note with Pool Logic in the amount of $140,000, which was signed by Martija and Defendant Asia Jaeger (Jaeger). Plaintiff alleges Pool Logic breached the agreement by failing to make payments.

On July 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Pool Logic, Martija, and Jaeger (collectively, Defendants), alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract–credit agreement, (2) breach of contract–personal guarantee, (3) breach of contract–promissory note, and (4) quantum meruit/unjust enrichment. In October, Plaintiff served Defendants via publication.

On December 5, 2022, default was entered against Defendants. On December 7, Plaintiff submitted the present application for default judgment.  

A case management conference is set for February 6, 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 Defendants in the total amount of $76,730.59, including $60,000 in damages, $2,169.87 in interest, $11,118.26 in attorney fees, and $3,442.46 in costs. For the following reasons, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s application without prejudice.

First, Plaintiff’s request for attorney fees in the amount of $11,118.26 exceeds the reasonable amount of $2,090 established by Local Rule 3.214. While the award of reasonable attorney fees is ultimately within the court discretion, courts determine whether an award is reasonable by considering “the nature, difficulty, intricacy and importance of the litigation, the amount involved, the skill required and success of the attorney's efforts, his or her learning, age and experience, and the time consumed.” (Contractors Labor Pool, Inc. v. Westway Contractors, Inc. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 152, 168-169.) However, Plaintiff’s counsel fails to address these factors and does not provide the court with a breakdown and accounting of Plaintiff’s attorney fee request.

Second, Plaintiff’s interest calculations are off by one cent. While Plaintiff requests $2,169.87 in interest at a per diem rate of $16.4348 (which actually amounts to $2,169.39 for 132 days), the court calculates Plaintiff’s interest as $2,169.86 with a per diem rate of $16.4383561644. (Summary of Case, § D.)

Lastly, Plaintiff’s request for damages is not sufficiently supported by the evidence. (Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 288.) Plaintiff requests $18,747.83 for invoices billed to Defendants, $40,604.91 under the promissory note, and $647.26 in interest. (Moberly Decl., ¶ 12.) Based on the court’s review of the 22 invoices provided by Plaintiff under Exhibit C, Plaintiff billed Defendants for a total of $42,702.68. (Moberly Decl., Ex. C.)

However, Plaintiff does not provide any evidence of payments made Defendants to justify the decreased amount. Furthermore, Plaintiff does not provide any evidence of payments made by Defendants on the promissory note. And last, while Plaintiff seeks to collect $60,000 in damages on the promissory note and business credit agreement from all Defendants, Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence to establish Jaeger is liable for unpaid invoices under the business credit agreement as Jaeger was only listed as a guarantor for the promissory note.

CONCLUSION

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