Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 24PSCV02312, Date: 2025-05-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV02312    Hearing Date: May 14, 2025    Dept: G

Plaintiff’s Default Judgment Application

Respondent:  None

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s Default Judgment Application is GRANTED

BACKGROUND

This action arises from the alleged breach of a commercial promissory note. (Compl., ¶¶ 13-14.) On July 18, 2024, Plaintiff FC Marketplace, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Melody Pan (“Defendant”) and DOES 1-100, alleging a single cause of action for Breach of Continuing Guaranty.

Defendant was served with the summons via publication in the Los Angeles Daily Journal. (2/18/25 Proof of Publication.)

On April 2, 2025, default was entered against Defendant. (4/2/25 Request for Entry of Default.)

On April 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant default judgment application. Plaintiff requests the entry of default judgment against Defendant in the sum of $277,525.29.

On May 1, 2025, DOES 1-100 were dismissed from this action without prejudice. (4/30/25 Request for Dismissal.)

ANALYSIS

Legal Standard

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800 sets forth the requirements for default judgments.  In pertinent part, the rule dictates that a party must use form CIV-100 and file the following documents with the clerk: (1) except in unlawful detainer cases, a brief summary of the case identifying the parties and the nature of plaintiff's claim; (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 declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant against whom judgment is sought; (6) a proposed form of judgment; (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under Code of Civil Procedure section 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (8) exhibits as necessary; and (9) a request for attorney fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a)(1)-(9).)

Discussion

The court reviewed Plaintiff’s default judgment application and finds that Plaintiff provided sufficient evidence in support of the requested default judgment. (Ridgdill Decl., ¶¶ 3-9; Exhs., A, B, C.) Specifically, Plaintiff seeks a judgment totaling $277,525.29, which includes damages of $172,831.22, prejudgment interest at 10% of $98,257.64, attorney fees of $3,618.31, costs of $701.76, and late fees of $2,116.36.  The court finds these amounts were correctly calculated and sufficiently supported. Further, the default judgment application complies with the requirements of Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800.

CONCLUSION

Based on the above, Plaintiff’s default judgment application is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.