Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 21STCV41498, Date: 2023-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV41498    Hearing Date: December 8, 2023    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Plaintiff Elm Terrace Holdings, LLC (“Plaintiff”) requests entry of default judgment against Defendant Truman Hedding (“Hedding”). Plaintiff seeks judgment in the total amount of $69,159.47, comprising $44,028.16 demanded in the Complaint, $9,434.31 in interest, $1,200.00 in costs, and $14,497.00 in attorney fees.

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

First, it is unclear whether the most recent default judgment package filed on October 12, 2023 (and October 11, 2023) was mailed to Hedding. Item 6(b) of the Request (Form CIV-100) filed on October 12, 2023 states that the request was mailed on “May 2, 2022.” In addition, there is no signature of the declarant below Item 6 of the Request. 

Second, Item 2(f) of the Request indicates that Plaintiff seeks a total of $69,179.47. However, Item 6(a)(6) of the proposed judgment (Form JUD-100) indicates that Plaintiff seeks a total of $69,159.47. (Underline added.) The Court notes that the amounts requested add up to $69,159.47.

Third, Plaintiff appears to calculate interest in part based on the amount of the November 9, 2022 Judgment against Defendant Snatch Media, Inc. dba Dealer Preroll. (See Cadman Decl., ¶ 9, “the additional interest amount will be, at 10% interest on the $58,632.91 judgment is the sum of $5,429.56.) Again, it is unclear why Plaintiff is seeking interest on the total amount of a judgment against another defendant in this action in the instant request. 

Fourth, Item 7(d) of the Request (the Memorandum of Costs) lists the amount “$600” but does not specify what the $600 in requested costs was incurred for. Thus, it is unclear if such costs are allowable under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5.

Fifth, there is a signature below Item 8 of the Request (Declaration of Military Status). However, the date next to the signature is February 2, 2022, and the instant request was filed on October 12, 2023.

Sixth, Plaintiff’s counsel’s supporting declaration filed on October 12, 2023 states that “the amount of fees has increased $4,497 from what was requested when the judgment against Snatch Media, Inc. was entered.” (Rothman Decl., ¶ 5.) The Court notes that on November 9, 2022, Judgment by default was entered against Defendant Snatch Media, Inc. dba Dealer Preroll, and the judgment included $10,000.00 in attorney’s fees. It thus appears Plaintiff is adding $4,497.00 to $10,000.00 for a total amount of $14,497.00 in attorney’s fees requested against Hedding. However, Plaintiff’s counsel does not appear to provide evidence substantiating any $10,000.00 amount purportedly requested against Hedding. The $10,000.00 in attorney’s fees previously awarded was included in a Judgment against Snatch Media, Inc. dba Dealer Preroll, a different defendant.

Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for default judgment without prejudice. Plaintiff to schedule resubmission of the default judgment package. 

DATED:  December 8, 2023                          ________________________________

Hon. Rolf M. Treu

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court