Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case Number: 24PSCV02565, Date: 2025-01-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 24PSCV02565, Date: 2025-01-06 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: 24PSCV02565 Hearing Date: January 6, 2025 Dept: G

Plaintiff Interpool’s Application for Default Judgment

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

BACKGROUND

This is a breach of contract action. On January 2, 2024, Plaintiff and Defendants executed an “Equipment Interchange Agreement For Marine Chassis Pools.” Plaintiff alleges that Defendants took chassis from the chassis pool and thereafter failed to pay Plaintiff for the rent of said chassis.

On August 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants 3Sunzeal Trucking, Inc., Qinhong Lou, and Does 1-20, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract, (2) common counts (within last 4 years), (3) common counts (within last 2 years), (4) injunctive relief and surrender order, (5) action for possession of personal property, and (6) conversion. On August 22, 2024, Plaintiff’s process server served Defendants 3Sunzeal Trucking, Inc. and Qinhong Lou with substitute service in Pomona, CA.

On November 12, 2024, the court entered default against Defendants 3Sunzeal Trucking, Inc., Qinhong Lou after Defendants failed to file a timely answer. On November 12, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed Defendant Qinhong Lou and Does 1-20 without prejudice, submitting an application for default judgment as to Defendant 3Sunzeal Trucking, Inc., along with supporting declarations.

A Case Management Conference is set for January 6, 2025 in Dept. G (Pomona).

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

Plaintiff seeks default judgment against 3Sunzeal Trucking in the amount of $29,052.27, including $26,251.00 in damages, interest of $1,107.26, attorneys’ fees of $1,177.53, and $516.48 in costs. For the following reasons, the court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s application and will permit Plaintiff an opportunity to submit a supplemental declaration.

First, Plaintiff requests the court award $1,107.26 in attorney fees, which the court finds is permissible under paragraph 12 of the subject “Equipment Interchange Agreement For Marine Chassis Pools” executed by the parties. However, Plaintiff’s declaration submitted by Howard Goodman, Esq. is silent as to how attorneys’ fees were calculated. Plaintiff is directed to submit a supplemental declaration addressing attorneys’ fees.

Second, Garcia requests $516.48 in costs. Plaintiff fails, however, to specify how costs were calculated. Plaintiff is directed to submit a supplemental declaration addressing costs.

Third, as to Plaintiff’s calculation of interest, the court accepts as the declaration of Howard Goodman, Esq. and its calculated as accurate and awards interest of $1,107.26.

Finally, as to Plaintiff’s request for an injunction requiring the return of chassis being used by Defendant 3Sunzeal trucking, the court finds good cause to order the return of said chassis. The declaration of Howard Goodman, Esq. in support of the injunction, however, is vague as to the number of chassis possessed by Defendant 3Sunzeal Trucking which belong to Plaintiff, and which should be returned to Plaintiff. Further, Plaintiff neglects to provide the court with any identifying information upon which the court may tailor an order for the return of the subject chassis. Plaintiff is directed to submit a supplemental declaration addressing the quantity and identification of the subject chassis to be returned.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s application for default judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.