Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV03436, Date: 2025-03-26 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: 23PSCV03436    Hearing Date: March 26, 2025    Dept: G

Plaintiff Alex Yu Jr.’s Application for Default Judgment

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Alex Yu Jr.’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

This is a contract/warranty breach action. On November 6, 2024, plaintiff Alex Yu Jr. (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Francisco Santiago Toral, Francisco Toral, 1 Stop Auto Service, 5 Points Auto Repair, Does 1 through 25, and Roes 1 through 25. Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: (1) general negligence, (2) breach of contract, (3) violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code 1780, (4) injunctive relief pursuant to Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Business & Professions Code section 17200, and (5) property damage.

On December 6, 2023, Plaintiff’s process personally served Francisco Santiago Toral aka Francisco Toral, 1 Stop Auto Service, and 5 Points Auto Repair in El Monte.

On April 4, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed Francisco Toral.

On November 18, 2024, the court entered default against 1 Stop Auto Service and 5 Points Auto Repair after they failed to file a timely answer.

On January 3, 2025, Plaintiff submitted the present application for default judgment against 5 Points Auto Repair.

On January 8, 2025, the court entered default against Francisco Santiago Toral after Francisco Santiago Toral failed to file a timely answer.

An order to show cause re: default judgment and case management conference are set for March 26, 2025.

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 Code of Civil Procedure section 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 5 Points Auto Repair in the total amount of $16,139.23, including $8,303.65 in damages, $2,308.63 in interest, $5,000 in attorney fees, and $526.95 in costs. For the following reasons, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s application without prejudice.

Plaintiff seeks default judgment against one party, 5 Points Auto Repair, but did not file an application for separate judgment against specified parties under Code of Civil Procedure, section 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a)(7).).)

Form CIV-100 requests $0.00 in special damages, but the declaration of Oscar D. Sandoval later requests $8,303.65. (CIV-100, p. 1; Sandoval Decl., ¶ 17.) The two amounts must match.

Form CIV-100 does not indicate that Plaintiff is requesting a judgment for general damages although Plaintiff claims general damages in the complaint. (Compl., ¶ 56.)

Plaintiff’s complaint requests damages for lost wages but Plaintiff does not support the claimed wage loss with documents showing hourly wages or hours missed. (Compl., ¶¶ 26, 35.)

Plaintiff requests $8,303.65 in special damages but provides a single receipt for $3,740 and does not explain the remaining $4,563.65. (Sandoval Decl., ¶ 17, Exh. A.)

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.)

In this case, Plaintiff’s complaint does not seek a specific amount of damages. Rather, the complaint alleges 5 Points Auto Repair failed to rebuild a transmission after Plaintiff paid 5 Points Auto Repair $3,740. (Comp., ¶ 13.) The present application requests $8,303.65 in special damages. (Sandoval Decl., ¶ 17.) The amount exceeds the request in the complaint.

Plaintiff requests $526.95 but does not provide a declaration or exhibit to support the requested costs.

Plaintiff requests $5,000 in attorney fees but does not describe whether the award of attorneys’ fees is allowed by statute or contract.

Plaintiff requests $2,308.63 in interest, but this is an incorrect calculation. The correct calculation results in $2,277.25 in interest.

CONCLUSION

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