Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case Number: 24PSCV00598, Date: 2024-09-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 24PSCV00598, Date: 2024-09-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV00598 Hearing Date: September 9, 2024 Dept: G

Plaintiff Clean Energy Solutions, Inc.’s Application for Default Judgment

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Clean Energy Solutions, Inc.’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

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

BACKGROUND

This is an action based on tortious interference with business. In February 2023, Defendants Alberto Garcia and California Clean Energy Solutions, LLC (CCES) allegedly registered the website domain name of “cleanenergysolution.org.” Plaintiff Clean Energy Solutions, Inc. (CES) alleges Garcia and CCES used CES’s business type, business name, and contact information for the website with the purpose of misleading CES’s potential customers. In August 2023, Garcia and CCES allegedly began a telemarketing campaign that marketed solar energy products and used CES’s name to do so. As a result, recipients of the calls began to complain to CES and post negative reviews of CES online.

On February 27, 2024, CES filed a complaint against Garcia, CCES, and Does 1-10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17525, (2) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, (3) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, (4) intentional interference with contract, (5) negligent interference with contract, (6) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, and (7) unjust enrichment. On March 1, 2024, CES’s process server personally served CCES in Glendale. On March 5, 2024, CES’s process server personally served Garcia in Pittsburg.

On April 4, 2024, the court entered default against CCES after they failed to file a timely answer. On April 5, 2024, the court entered default against Garcia after Garcia also failed to file a timely answer. On August 30, 2024, CES submitted the present application for default judgment.

An OSC Re: Default Judgment is set for September 9, 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

CES seeks default judgment against Garcia and CCES in the total amount of $295,448.90, including $280,250.00 in damages, $14,204.45 in interest, and $994.45 in costs.¿For the following reasons, the court DENIES CES’s application without prejudice.

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, the prayer of CES’s Complaint requests damages “according to proof” and does not provide a specific amount. (Complaint, ¶ 5-7.) Nor do the allegations of the Complaint provide any such number. Because the Complaint does not apprise defendants of the maximum amount of liability they face, the court cannot grant CES’s request for default judgment.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, CES’s application for default judgment is DENIED without prejudice. The court will entertain a motion by Plaintiff for leave to amend the Complaint.