Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 24PSCV01234, Date: 2024-09-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV01234    Hearing Date: September 11, 2024    Dept: G

Plaintiffs Pacific Castle Colima I, LLC and Master K Investment I, LLC’s Application for Default Judgment

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs Pacific Castle Colima I, LLC and Master K Investment I, LLC’s Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $12,887.18.

BACKGROUND

This is an unlawful detainer action. In September 2022, Plaintiffs Pacific Castle Colima I, LLC (Pacific Castle) and Master K Investment I, LLC (Master K) entered into a lease agreement with Defendant 1655G Azusa LLC (1655G Azusa) in which Pacific Castle and Master K agreed to lease a commercial property in Hacienda Heights to 1655G Azusa for a five-year term. In support of the lease agreement, Defendants Peter Chong and Dung Nguyen executed personal guaranties. In April 2024, Pacific Castle and Master K allege 1655G Azusa, Chong, and Nguyen (collectively, the 1655G Azusa Defendants) failed to comply with a three-business-day notice to pay rent or quit.

On April 17, 2024, Pacific Castle and Master K filed a complaint against the 1655G Azusa Defendants and Does 1-10, alleging a cause of action for unlawful detainer. On April 23, 2024, Pacific Castle and Master K’s process server served Nguyen with substitute service and 1655G Azusa and Chong with personal service in Oakland.

On May 1, 2024, the court entered default against 1655G Azusa and Chong after they failed to file a timely answer. On May 14, 2024, the court entered default against Nguyen after Nguyen also failed to timely file an answer.

On May 14, 2024, the court entered a clerk’s judgment of possession in favor Pacific Castle and Master K against the 1655G Azusa Defendants.

On July 29, 2024, Pacific Castle and Master K submitted the present application for default judgment. A case management conference is set for September 11, 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

Pacific Castle and Master K seek default judgment against the 1655G Azusa Defendants in the total amount of $13,268.20, including $11,524.27 in damages, $735.73 in attorney fees, and $1,008.20 in costs. Because the court finds Pacific Castle and Master K have submitted sufficient evidence, the court GRANTS their application for default judgment with the following modifications.

While Pacific Castle and Master K seek $11,976.48 in holdover damages, the court notes this calculation is incorrect. Instead, the court notes the proper amount should be $11,606.56 ($269.92 multiplied by 43 days (5/1/2024 to 6/13/2024)). The court then adjusts this amount to $11,154.35 after consideration of the 1655G Azusa Defendants’ overpayment of $452.21. Based on these calculations, the court also reduces Pacific Castle and Master K’s awarded attorney fees to $724.63 ($690.00 + $34.63 or 3% of $1,154.35).

Accordingly, the total judgment is calculated at $12,887.18.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Pacific Castle and Master K’s application for default judgment is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $12,887.18.