Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 24PSCV02171, Date: 2025-05-07 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: 24PSCV02171    Hearing Date: May 7, 2025    Dept: G

Plaintiff Leaf Capital Funding, LLC’s Application for Default Judgment

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Leaf Capital Funding, LLC’s Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This case involves a breach of contract. On December 2, 2022, plaintiff Leaf Capital Funding, LLC (Plaintiff) entered into the Lease Agreement with defendant Autopro Boy & Paint, Inc. (Defendant), where Plaintiff agreed to finance Defendant’s purchase of a G-481 HA0 (Equipment). Defendant agreed to pay $2,188.86 per month for sixty (60) months. On December 6, 2022, the parties amended the Lease Agreement and Defendant agreed to pay $2,413.22 per month for sixty (60) months. Defendant defaulted on July 16, 2023.

On March 10, 2023, Plaintiff entered into the Finance Agreement with Defendant, where Plaintiff agreed to finance Defendant’s purchase of a Dell Poweredge (Equipment #2). Defendant agreed to pay $2,168.73 per month for sixty (60) months. On March 22, 2023, the parties amended the Finance Agreement and Defendant agreed to pay $2,233.74 per month for sixty (60) months. Defendant defaulted on July 20, 2023.

On July 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant and Does 1 through 100, alleging causes of action for (1) breach of written agreement, (2) breach of written agreement, (3) account stated, and (4) claim and delivery.

On August 19, 2024, Plaintiff’s process server served Defendant through the Secretary of State in Sacramento. On February 21, 2025, the court entered default against Defendant after they failed to file a timely answer.

On April 1, 2025, Plaintiff submitted the present application for default judgment and dismissed Does 1 through 100.

An order to show cause re: default judgment is set for May 7, 2025.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 585 permits entry of a default judgment after a party has failed to respond or appear timely. 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, rule 3.1800.)

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff seeks default judgment against Defendant in the total amount of $333,120.18, including $250,628.69 in damages, $72,674.81 in interest, $4,396.28 in attorney fees, $4,891.90 in late fees, and $528.50 in costs.  Because the court determines that Plaintiff has submitted sufficient evidence to support its request, the default judgment is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s application for default judgment is GRANTED.