Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 21STCV15948, Date: 2022-10-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV15948    Hearing Date: October 14, 2022    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Plaintiff Michael Francati (“Plaintiff”) requests entry of default judgment against Defendant Dexter Tiewon Gore, Jr. AKA Famous Dex (“Defendant”). Plaintiff appears to seek judgment in the total amount of $170,000.00, comprising $90,000.00 demanded in the complaint, $10,000.00 in special damages, and $70,000.00 in general damages.

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

First, although Plaintiff’s Request for Court Judgment (Form CIV-100) indicates that Plaintiff seeks judgment in the total amount of $170,000.00, Plaintiff’s proposed Judgment (Form JUD-100) indicates that Plaintiff seeks judgment in the total amount of $90,000.00.

Second, the name of Defendant listed in Item 1(d) of the Request for Court Judgment is Dexter Tiewon Gore, Jr. AKA Famous Dex. This does not exactly match the name listed in Item 5(a) of the proposed Judgment, which is Dexter Tiewon Gore, Jr.

Third, although Plaintiff’s counsel signed below Item 8 of the Request for Court Judgment (Declaration of nonmilitary status), Item 8 is not checked. The Court notes that pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a)(5), a party seeking a default judgment must file “[a] declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant against whom judgment is sought.”

Fourth, Plaintiff still has not provided sufficient evidentiary support for the requested $90,000.00 in damages demanded in the Complaint. (See Item 2(a) of the Request for Court Judgment.) Plaintiff asserts that “[a]s a result of FAMOUS DEX’S tortious conduct, I sustained the loss of my WATCH which as [sic] valued at no less than $49,000.” (Francati Decl., ¶ 66.) Plaintiff provides evidence of a “Detailed Appraisal Report” valuing the subject watch at $49,000.00. (Francati Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. A.) However, it is still unclear what the remaining $41,000.00 (out of the $90,000.00) in requested damages allegedly pertains to, and Plaintiff does not provide sufficient evidentiary support for the same.

Fourth, as noted in the Court’s August 9, 2022 Order on Plaintiff’s previous request, although the Request for Court Judgment lists $10,000.00 in “special damages” and $70,000.00 in “general damages,” Plaintiff appears to seek $80,000.00 in punitive damages. (See Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Default Judgment, at p. 8:5-7.) On July 30, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Statement of Damages indicating that he seeks $80,000.00 in punitive damages.[1] In addition, in the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges in the prayer for relief that he seeks in excess of $90,000.00 in compensatory damages, and “punitive damages allowed by law.” (Compl., ¶ 186.) The Complaint does not allege that Plaintiff separately seeks a specified amount in special and/or general damages. The Court notes that “[t]he amount of the default judgment ‘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.’” (Dhawan v. Biring (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 963, 968; citing Code Civ. Proc., § 580(a).) Thus, the Request for Court Judgment must accurately reflect what Plaintiff seeks in the Complaint and in the statement provided for by Section 425.115. 

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:  October 14, 2022                           ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court