Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 20STCV03954, Date: 2022-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV03954    Hearing Date: October 4, 2022    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Plaintiffs Rene Aguilar (“Aguilar”) and Araseli Delgado aka Araceli Delgado (“Plaintiffs”) request entry of default judgment against Defendant Ana Maria Jimenez (“Defendant”). Plaintiffs seek judgment in the total amount of $150,000.00, comprising $150,000.00 demanded in the Complaint.

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

First, the Court issued on Order on July 22, 2022 denying Plaintiffs’ previous request for default judgment without prejudice. Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed a new request for court judgment (Form CIV-100) on August 30, 2022. As indicated in the Court’s docket, this filing was rejected. The Court’s August 31, 2022 Notice of Rejection notes that Item 1(a) of the request incorrectly indicates that the Complaint was filed on January 30, 2021. The Notice of Rejection states, “[p]lease submit a new Request for Court Judgment with new dates of execution.” However, Plaintiffs have not filed a new Request for Court Judgment.

Second, Plaintiffs have not corrected the defects identified by the Court’s July 22, 2022 Order on Plaintiffs’ previous request for default judgment. Plaintiffs have still failed to sufficiently prove up their damages. They attach two purported declarations, the first of which still repeatedly refers to what the Plaintiffs “allege.” Additionally, the first declaration states that several grant deeds are attached as exhibits to the declaration, but such deeds are not attached. Certain documents are attached to the two declarations of Rene Aguilar, none of which appear to be a deed. In addition, the attached documents are not properly authenticated, and there are no exhibit pages included, so it is unclear what the documents purport to show.   

The second declaration is still not submitted in its entirety, it is cut off in the middle of paragraph 4. The remainder of this declaration, which includes Aguilar’s signature, appears to be attached to the rejected Request for Court Judgment form (Form CIV-100). In addition, Plaintiffs assert that they “were defaulted out of the value of the property, and the improper stripping of equity from the property which is substantially in excess of $150,000.” (Aguilar Decl., ¶ 8.) The second declaration still does not explain what is meant by the statement in paragraph 8 nor do Plaintiffs explain exactly what occurred and how they have personal knowledge of what occurred. As previously indicated, the court is required to render default judgment only “for that relief . . . as appears by the evidence to be just.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 585(b).) Without such evidence, the court may refuse to grant default judgment for any amount, notwithstanding the defendant’s default. (Taliaferro v. Hoogs (1963) 219 Cal.App.2d 559, 560.) In addition, the rejected Request for Court Judgment still indicates in several places that the total judgment sought is “$150.000” and elsewhere it is listed as “$150,000.00.”  

Third, Item 5(a) of the proposed Judgment lists “Araseli Delgado AKA Araceli D” as a plaintiff. It appears that the name got cut off, because the Complaint indicates that Araseli Delgado aka Araceli Delgado is a plaintiff.

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

DATED:  October 4, 2022                             ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court