Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 19STCV21630, Date: 2022-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV21630    Hearing Date: September 13, 2022    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Plaintiff Rene Quevedo requests entry of default judgment against Defendants Shik Builders, Inc. and Moshe Keren. Plaintiff seeks judgment in the total amount of $44,001.95, comprising $33,000.00 demanded in the complaint, $10,293.00 in interest, and $708.96 in costs.

The Court notes a number of defects with the submitted default judgment package. 

Plaintiff has again failed to sufficiently prove up the damages sought. In its June 6, 2022 Order on Plaintiff’s previous request for default judgment, the Court noted, inter alia, that “Plaintiff attempts to authenticate the June 6, 2018 agreement with a declaration from his counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel has no personal knowledge of any facts sufficient to sustain a finding that the June 6, 2018 agreement is the writing that Plaintiff claims it is. In addition, Plaintiff asserts that the remaining balance owed is $33,000, but does not present sufficient evidence proving up the $33,000 in damages; simply stating that Plaintiff fulfilled his duty is a conclusion.” The Court notes that Plaintiff failed to address these issues or provide any evidence in connection with the instant request for default judgment filed on August 8, 2022.

Second, Plaintiff seeks $10,293.00 in interest in connection with the instant request. Plaintiff’s previous request for default judgment sought $8,877.28 in interest. (See Court’s June 6, 2022 Order on Plaintiff’s Request for Default Judgment.) The Court notes that Plaintiff did not provide interest calculations pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a)(3) in a separate declaration under penalty of perjury in connection with the instant request.

Third, the Court notes that when adding up the $33,000.00 demanded in the complaint, $10,293.00 in interest, and $708.96 in costs, the total amounts to $44,001.96. Thus, the total amounts listed in Item 2(f) of the request and Item 6(a)(6) of the proposed judgment are inaccurate. 

Fourth, Item 1(e)(1) of the proposed judgment is checked, but Item 1(e)(2) should be checked.

Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for default judgment without prejudice. The Court will discuss with Plaintiff a schedule for resubmission of the default judgment package.

DATED:  September 13, 2022                       ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court