Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 19STCV35232, Date: 2023-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV35232    Hearing Date: January 31, 2023    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Plaintiff Mirna Boror (“Plaintiff”) requests entry of default judgment against Defendant Rosa Bravo (“Bravo”). Plaintiff seeks judgment in the total amount of $285,203.35, comprising $226,580.00 demanded in the complaint, $4,030.85 in costs, and $54,592.50 in attorney fees.

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

First, Item 2(a) of the Request for Court Judgment (Form CIV-100) indicates that Plaintiff seeks $226,580.00 in damages demanded in the complaint. However, the “Balance” line lists $123,780.00 in damages even though no “Credits acknowledged” are set forth. 

Second, Plaintiff submitted a specially prepared proposed judgment and did not use Form JUD-100. The Court will require the use of Form JUD-100 because this does not appear to be a case where a lengthy or detailed judgment is necessary. (See LASC Rule 3.213(b).)

Third, Plaintiff’s Request for Court Judgment indicates that Plaintiff seeks $54,592.50 in attorney fees, but the proposed Judgment indicates that Plaintiff seeks $19,369.55 in attorney fees and $35,222.95 in “already issued” sanctions. As to the sanctions, the Court notes that Code of Civil Procedure section 580, subdivision (a) “limits a trial court’s jurisdiction to grant relief on a default judgment to the amount stated in the complaint.” (Dhawan v. Biring (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 963, 968.) “[I]n all default judgments the demand sets a ceiling on recovery.” (Finney v. Gomez (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 527, 534.) 

Fourth, it is unclear how Plaintiff calculated the $51,000.00 in requested statutory treble damages. (Kane Decl., ¶ 10.) It is also unclear how Plaintiff calculated the requested $50,900.00 in statutory damages. (Kane Decl., ¶ 16.) Plaintiff asserts that “Bravo is entitled to penalties in excess of $50,900.00 as of September 30, 2019, the date Boror filed her Complaint.” (Kane Decl., ¶ 16.) The Court notes that the original Complaint in this case was filed on October 2, 2019, not September 30, 2019. In addition, it appears Plaintiff intended to indicate that Boror is entitled to penalties, not Bravo. 

Fifth, Plaintiff asserts that “on April 3, 2019, the HCIDLA ordered Bravo to ‘pay relocation directly to the tenant or deposit it in an escrow account with escrow instructions to the tenant within 15 days’ of Bravo serving Boror with a notice of eviction, in accordance with LAMC §§ 15 l .09(C)(5) and (G). [Ex. 3] At that time, Boror was a low-income tenant with minor children, entitling her to the maximum allowable relocation assistance during that period, which was $20,450.00. [Ex. 4].” (Kane Decl., ¶ 6.) However, Exhibit 3 attached to Mr. Kane’s declaration indicates, inter alia, that “[t]he procedure a landlord must follow to evict a tenant to comply with a government order involves the following…3) The landlord must either pay relocation directly to the tenant or deposit it in escrow…Depending on the tenancy the relocation amount can range from $8,050.00 to $20,050.00.” (Kane Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. 3.)

Lastly, On November 16, 2021, Plaintiff dismissed without prejudice defendants Edwin Castro, Valeria Castro, and Vivian Cardona AKA Vivian Castro. However, no request for dismissal appears to have been filed as to Defendant Javier Bravo or Does 1 to 20. A party seeking a default judgment must file “[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 . . . .”¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a)(7).)¿ 

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

DATED:  January 31, 2023                            ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court