Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 19STLC01640, Date: 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STLC01640    Hearing Date: December 7, 2022    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Plaintiff Gail Bleckman (“Plaintiff”) requests entry of default judgment against Defendant Ryan Katzenbach. Plaintiff seeks $3,270.65 in costs, $990.00 in attorney’s fees, and a judgment that “Defendant Ryan Katzenbach, an individual dba Katco Media is ordered to provide an accounting on all monies earned on the Amityville films from February 13, 2018 to the [sic] August 23, 2022 within 60 days of this order. In addition, Plaintiff is entitled to Judgment in the amount of $4,260.65 in attorney’s fees and costs, plus post-judgment interest at the legal rate of ten percent (10%) per annum until paid.”

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

First, Item 1(a) of the Request for Court Judgment (Form CIV-100) incorrectly indicates that the Complaint was filed on February 12, 2019. The Complaint was filed on February 13, 2019.

Second, Item 1(d) of the Request for Court Judgment indicates that Plaintiff requests a Court judgment against Ryan Katzenbach. However, the proposed Judgment references Ryan Katzenbach, an individual dba Katco Media.

Third, Plaintiff has not provided any authority for certain requested costs that are not allowable under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 (i.e., costs for copying and sanctions).

Fourth, the proposed judgment provides, inter alia, that “Defendant Ryan Katzenbach, an individual dba Katco Media is ordered to provide an accounting on all monies earned on the Amityville films from February 13, 2018 to the [sic] August 23, 2022 within 60 days of this order.” (Emphasis added.) However, the Complaint alleges that “Plaintiff is entitled to an accounting from Defendants of her share of the monies from the film since 4/20/18.” (Compl.,    ¶ 15, emphasis added.) The Court notes that “A complaint . . . shall contain . . . the following:¿ . . . .¿ (2) A demand for judgment for the relief to which the pleader claims to be entitled.¿ If the recovery of money or damages is demanded, the amount demanded shall be stated.” ((Id., § 425.10, subd. (a).) 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.)

Fifth, Plaintiff may seek attorney’s fees “if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties.” ((Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a)(9).) It is unclear on what basis Plaintiff is seeking attorney’s fees.

Based on the foregoing, the Court denies the request for default judgment without prejudice. The Clerk will discuss with counsel a schedule for submitting a new default judgment package.  

DATED:  December 7, 2022                          ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court