Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV03091, Date: 2024-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV03091    Hearing Date: March 14, 2024    Dept: G

Plaintiff Cyntia Valle’s Application for Default Judgment

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Cyntia Valle’s Application for Default Judgment is CONTINUED to a date to be determined at the case management conference set in Department G.

BACKGROUND

This is a premises liability action. In October 2022, Plaintiff Cyntia Valle was walking along Main Street in El Monte when Valle tripped and fell on an allegedly uneven sidewalk. Valle alleges the sidewalk was jointly owned, maintained, managed, and operated by Defendants City of El Monte (the City) and La Barca Restaurant Inc (La Barca).

On October 6, 2023, Valle filed a complaint against the City, La Barca, and Does 1-50, alleging the following causes of action: (1) general negligence and (2) premises liability. On October 23, Valle’s process server personally served the City in El Monte. On the same day, Valle’s process server also served La Barca with substitute service in Los Angeles.

On December 6, 2023, the City filed an answer.

On January 22, 2024, default was entered against La Barca. On March 7, Valle submitted the present application for default judgment.

A case management conference is set for March 14, 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

Valle seeks default judgment against La Barca in the total amount of $385,667.21, including $385,000 in damages and $667.21 in costs. But while Valle provided a declaration in support of the application for default judgment, Valle failed to attach copies of the exhibits referenced in Valle’s declaration. Accordingly, the court finds Valle’s application is incomplete and CONTINUES the hearing to a date to be determined at the case management conference set in Department G.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Valle’s application for default judgment is CONTINUED to a date to be determined at the case management conference set in Department G.