Judge: Stephanie M. Bowick, Case: 31STCV17165, Date: 2025-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 31STCV17165 Hearing Date: February 27, 2025 Dept: 19

HEARING DATE: 02/27/2025

CASE NAME: L.A. Arena Company LLC v. Fur Media Ltd.

CASE NUMBER: 23STCV17165

DATE FILED: 07/21/2023

DEFAULT ENTERED: 05/22/2024

PROCEEDING: Request for Entry of Default Judgment against Defendant Fur Media Ltd. Liability Co. aka "Fur Media Ltd”

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff L.A. Arena Company, LLC

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff L.A. Arena Company, LLC’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment against Defendant Fur Media Ltd. Liability Co. aka "Fur Media Ltd” is GRANTED in the amount of $2,285,369.59.

The Court enters the proposed judgment filed on October 14, 2024, with a revised prejudgment interest figure of $359,278.99 and a revised total of $2,285,369.59.

Notice waived as to Defendant, who is in default.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a breach of contract case. Plaintiff L.A. Arena Company, LLC (“Plaintiff”) brings suit against Defendant Fur Media Ltd. Liability Co. aka "Fur Media Ltd. (“Defendant”) alleging the following cause of action:

1. Breach of Contract.

The Complaint alleges that, on August 2, 2021 and September 15, 2021, Defendant breached a “Suite License Agreement” by failing to pay annual license fees due and owing.

On May 22, 2024, Defendant’s default was entered.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS; CRC 3.1800

Use of JC Form CIV-100 OK
Dismissal or judgment of non-parties to the judgment OK
Declaration of non-military status for each defendant OK
Summary of the case OK
CCP § 585(d) declarations/admissible evidence in support of judgment OK
Exhibits (as necessary) OK
Interest computation (as necessary) OK
Memorandum of costs OK
Request for attorney fees (per Local Rule 3.214) N/A
Proposed judgment OK
Declaration of mailing CCP § 587 OK

Principal Requested: $1,928,500.00

Interest: $449,306.58

Costs: $693.20

Attorneys’ Fees: N/A

Total: $2,378,499.78

RECOMMENDATION

In rendering a default judgment, “[i]t is the duty of the court to act as gatekeeper, ensuring that only the appropriate claims get through.” (Heidary v. Yadollahi (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 857, 868.) “The correct standard of proof requires that the plaintiff merely establish a prima facie case.” (Johnson v. Stanhiser (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 357, 361.) “‘Generally speaking, the party who makes default thereby confesses the material allegations of the complaint. It is also true that where a cause of action is stated in the complaint and evidence is introduced to establish a prima facie case the trial court may not disregard the same, but must hear the evidence offered by the plaintiff and must render judgment in his favor for such sum, not exceeding the amount stated in the complaint, or for such relief, not exceeding that demanded in the complaint, as appears from the evidence to be just.’” (Id. at 361-362 (quoting Taliaferro v. Davis (1963) 216 Cal.App.2d 398, 408-409) (internal citations omitted); see Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 281 .)

Furthermore, “[a]s a general rule, a default judgment is . . . limited to the damages of which the defendants had notice.” (Schwab v. Rondel Homes, Inc. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 428, 433.) “The relief granted to the plaintiff, if there is no answer, cannot exceed that demanded in the complaint, in the statement required by Section 425.11, or in the statement provided for by Section 425.115.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 580.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800. The Court considers as evidence the declarations of Richard D. Buckley, Jr. and Chris Cockrell, filed on July 3, 2024, the supplemental declaration of Richard D. Buckley, Jr., filed on September 4, 2024, and the second supplemental declaration of Richard D. Buckley, Jr., filed on October 14, 2024.

I. DAMAGES

As explained in the Court’s October 1, 2024 Minute Order, the Court finds that Plaintiff alleges a viable claim for breach of the “Suite License Agreement” and adequately proves up $1,925,397.40 in damages. (October 1, 2024 Minute Order, pp. 3-7.)

II. INTEREST

As explained in the Court’s October 1, 2024 Minute Order, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest a rate of ten percent (10%) per annum. (Id. at p. 8.)

After review and consideration of the second supplemental declaration of Richard D. Buckley, Jr. filed on October 14, 2024, the Court awards Plaintiff prejudgment interest as follows:

a. the $42,000.00 due and owing as of August 2, 2021 –

i. Annual Interest = $42,000.00 x 0.10 = $4,200.00;

ii. Daily Interest = $4,200.00 (Annual Interest) / 365 days = $11.51;

iii. Total Interest = $11.51 (Daily Interest) x 1,305 [number of days from and including August 3, 2021 to and including February 27, 2025] = $15,020.55

b. the $43,000.00 due and owing as of September 15, 2021 –

i. Annual Interest = $43,000.00 x 0.10 = $4,300.00;