Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 24PSCV00507, Date: 2024-08-16 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: 24PSCV00507    Hearing Date: August 16, 2024    Dept: G

Plaintiff Joseph Kohl’s Application for Default Judgment

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Joseph Kohl’s Application for Default Judgment is CONTINUED to a date to be determined at the hearing set in Department G (Pomona). Plaintiff Joseph Kohl is further ordered to resubmit Plaintiff Joseph Kohl’s supporting declaration in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5.

BACKGROUND

This is a breach of contract action arising from a lease agreement. In October 2012, Plaintiff Joseph Kohl, Defendant Cindy Long, and Michael Goff entered into a written lease agreement for a property in Claremont. In November 2014, Kohl alleges Long breached the lease agreement by failing to pay rent or late payment fees; failing to keep the premises in clean, sanitary, and good condition; failing to notify Kohl of defects in and about the premises; failing to reimburse Kohl for repairs; making repairs or alterations of premises without written consent; changing locks for the premises; violating municipal codes; committing waste; creating a nuisance; and keeping pets.

On February 16, 2024, Kohl filed a complaint against Long and Does 1-10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract, (2) negligence, and (3) trespass. On March 29, 2024, Kohl’s process server served Long with substitute service in Westminster.

On May 8, 2024, the court entered default against Long after Long failed to file a timely answer. On August 8, 2024, Kohl submitted the present application for default judgment.

An OSC Re: Default Judgment and OSC Re: Sanctions is set for August 16, 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

Kohl seeks default judgment against Long in the total amount of $72,255.06, including $63,000.00 in damages, $8,647.26 in interest, and $607.80 in costs. But while Kohl provided a declaration in support of the application for default judgment, the declaration is insufficient because it does not state it was made in California or that it is “under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California” as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5. (See Bombardier Recreational Products, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Canada ULC (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 591, 604.) Accordingly, Kohl’s declaration must be resubmitted in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Kohl’s application for default judgment is CONTINUED to a date to be determined at the hearing set in Department G (Pomona). Kohl is further ordered to resubmit Kohl’s supporting declaration in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5.