Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case 22PSCV01709 2023-04-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 22PSCV01709, Date: 2023-04-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV01709 Hearing Date: April 13, 2023 Dept: G

Plaintiffs Prime Luxe Transportation and Mathew Murillo’s Application for Default Judgment

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs Prime Luxe Transportation and Mathew Murillo’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

This is a breach of contract action arising from a vehicle repair agreement. In January 2022, Plaintiffs Luxe Transportation and Mathew Murillo entered into a written agreement with Exclusive Motoring Wraps Exclusive (Exclusive Motoring), Exclusive Motoring LLC, and Jaime Zarate (Zarate, collectively, Defendants) in which Plaintiff agreed to pay $60,000 in exchange for Defendants complete a full demo and rebuild of Plaintiffs’ 2022 Mercedes Benz Sprinter by May 1, 2022. Subsequently, Plaintiffs allege Defendants failed to complete the work on Plaintiffs’ vehicle by May 1. On October 6, Defendants allegedly informed Plaintiffs that they did not have enough parts to complete the project.

On November 7, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants and Does 1-50, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of written contract, (2) breach of oral contract, (3) negligence, (4) conversion, (5) fraud, (6) rescission, (7) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (8) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200. On November 18, Plaintiffs’ registered process server served Exclusive Motoring LLC with substitute service in La Puente. On November 21, Plaintiffs’ registered process server personally served Zarate at the same location.

On February 16, 2023, default was entered against Exclusive Motoring LLC and Zarate and Plaintiffs submitted the present application for default judgment. On April 5 at Plaintiffs’ request, the court dismissed Exclusive Motoring LLC from the present action.

An OSC re: Default Judgment is set for April 13, 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

Plaintiffs seek default judgment against Defendant Zarate in the total amount of $197,500, including $190,000 in damages and $7,500 in attorney fees.¿For the following reasons, the court DENIES Plaintiffs’ application without prejudice.

First, the court notes Plaintiffs’ CIV-100 application for default judgment contains multiple errors as (1) Plaintiffs failed check the boxes identifying which type of judgment Plaintiffs were requested (court judgment or clerk’s judgment), (2) Plaintiffs included different totals for the same judgment in Item 2, and (3) Plaintiffs did not request costs in Item 2 although Plaintiffs later completed the memorandum of costs section in Item 7.

Second, while Plaintiffs requests $7,500 on attorney fees, Plaintiffs’ sole declaration does not provide any legal or contractual basis for the award of attorney fees.

Third, while the court dismissed Defendant Exclusive Motoring LLC on Plaintiffs’ request, Plaintiffs have failed to dismiss the Doe Defendants or Defendant Exclusive Motoring Wraps Exclusive 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 Plaintiffs only applied for default judgment against Zarate.

Lastly, 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.) While Plaintiffs’ application requested $190,000 in damages, the prayer in Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to specify the amount of damages and the allegations request $120,000. (Complaint, ¶ 39, 44, 56.) Thus, Plaintiffs’ request exceeds the demand in the Complaint.

CONCLUSION

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