Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 22STCV10711, Date: 2023-04-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV10711    Hearing Date: April 6, 2023    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Plaintiff Strategic Funding Source, Inc., doing business as Kapitus (“Plaintiff”) requests entry of default judgment against Defendants Migan Murray, individually and doing business as Rite Time Transport, Gilberto Jimenez, individually and doing business as Rite Time Transport, and Ritetime, Corp. (“Ritetime”), in the total amount of $64,007.31, comprising $42,844.04 demanded in the Complaint, $5,516.16 in interest, $ 2,086.61 in costs, and $13,560.50 in attorney’s fees.  

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

First, Item 2(a) of Plaintiff’s Request for Court Judgment indicates that Plaintiff seeks $42,844.04 in damages demanded in the Complaint. However, in the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that it seeks “the sum of $34,996.50, plus $7,500.00 in fees,” which totals $42,496.50. (See, e.g., Compl., pp. 8:4; 8:23.) 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.)  

Second, only the fourth cause of action of the Complaint is alleged against Ritetime. In support of the fourth cause of action, Plaintiff alleges that “[t]he Loan Agreement provides, among other things, that upon a breach of the terms thereof, Plaintiff is entitled to take possession of the Collateral,” and that “the Collateral is now in the possession of Murray, Jimenez, Ritetime and Does 11 through 20, inclusive…” (Compl., ¶¶ 22, 24.) Plaintiff alleges that “the estimated liquidation value of the Collateral is approximately $25,000, or in an amount according to proof at time of trial or entry of judgment.” (Compl., ¶ 25.) However, the “demand of complaint” set forth in Item 2(a) of the Request for Court Judgment ($42,844.04) exceeds this amount. Thus, the amount sought against Ritetime in the instant request for default judgment appears to exceed the amount stated in the Complaint as to Ritetime.

Lastly, Plaintiff has not provided any declaration demonstrating how the requested $5,516.16 in interest was calculated. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subdivision (a)(3), a party seeking a default judgment must file “[i]nterest computations as necessary.”  

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

DATED:  April 6, 2023                                 

________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court