Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case Number: 23PSCV02816, Date: 2024-08-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV02816, Date: 2024-08-06 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 a tentative ruling by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 23PSCV02816 Hearing Date: August 6, 2024 Dept: G

Plaintiff Herbert Bagoro Amanya’s Application for Default Judgment

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Herbert Bagoro Amanya’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

This is a breach of contract action. In 2017, Plaintiff Herbert Bagoro Amanya and Defendant Roy Martin II allegedly formed a partnership to operate an adult residential care facility through an entity named Avani Home, Inc. (Avani). In May 2020, Amanya and Martin acquired real property in Covina for Avani’s operations. In June 2023, Amanya alleges Martin breached their partnership agreement by unilaterally removing Amanya from the position of officer and director for Avani in Avani’s corporate filings. Martin allegedly now claims the partnership and Amanya have no interest in the Covina property.

On September 13, 2023, Amanya filed a complaint against Martin and Does 1-25, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of fiduciary duty, (2) breach of contract, (3) conversion of partnership assets, (4) unjust enrichment, (5) accounting, and (6) imposition of constructive trust. On April 19, 2024, Amanya’s process server served Martin with substitute service in Covina.

On May 31, 2024, the Court entered default against Martin after Martin failed to file a timely answer. On July 9, 2024, Amanya submitted the present application for default judgment.

An OSC Re: Default/Default Judgment is set for August 6, 2024.

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

Amanya seeks default judgment against Martin in the total amount of $258,766.87, including $257,250 in damages and $1,516.87 in costs. For the following reasons, the court DENIES Amanya’s application.

First, the Court notes Amanya’s CIV-100 application is incomplete as it does not list any damages or costs in paragraph two of the form despite requesting $258,766.87 in the proposed judgment.

Second, 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.) Allegations “according to proof” are insufficient in a default judgment proceeding as they do not inform defendants of their maximum liability. (Yu v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 1024, 1032.)

Here, neither the Complaint’s prayer nor allegations state any specific number of damages. Accordingly, the Court cannot award any damages to Amanya and Amanya must amend the Complaint to include the amounts requested.

CONCLUSION

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

The court will entertain a motion by Plaintiff for leave to amend the Complaint.