Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 23STCV08767, Date: 2023-10-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV08767    Hearing Date: March 5, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Plaintiff LVNV Funding LLC (“Plaintiff”) requests entry of default judgment against Defendant Stephen C Dimon. Plaintiff seeks judgment in the total amount of $62,561.68, comprising $53,235.45 demanded in the Complaint, $6,838.02 in interest, $533.50 in costs, and $1,954.71 in attorney fees.   

The Court notes one defect with the submitted default judgment package. 

As set forth above, Plaintiff seeks $6,838.02 in interest. However, as discussed in the Court’s December 14, 2023 minute order on Plaintiff’s previous request for default judgment, Plaintiff does not appear to allege in the Complaint that it seeks interest. As discussed in the December 14, 2023 minute order, “[a] complaint or cross-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.” ((Code Civ. Proc., § 425.10, subd. (a)(2).) “[I]n all default judgments the demand sets a ceiling on recovery.” ((Finney v. Gomez (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 527, 534.) “A trial court has no jurisdiction to grant a plaintiff more relief against a defaulting defendant than is asked for in the complaint.” ((Feminist Women's Health Center v. Blythe (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1641, 1675.)

Plaintiff notes that the Complaint alleges that “Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendant as follows:…4. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.” (Compl., p. 5:2-7.) Plaintiff cites to Segura v. McBride (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1041, where the Court of Appeal found that “[i]n his complaint Segura included a general request for ‘such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.’ This prayer is sufficient for the court, on its own, to invoke its power to levy such prejudgment interest as it deems just and equitable.” However, Segura did not involve a request for prejudgment interest in connection with a request for default judgment.

The Court notes that in Flores v. Smith (1941) 47 Cal.App.2d 253, 260, the Court of Appeal found that “Section 580 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides: ‘Relief to be awarded to plaintiff. The relief granted to the plaintiff, if there be no answer, cannot exceed that which he shall have demanded in the complaint. . . .’ A default judgment, whether entered with or without the action of the court, cannot properly be for an amount not shown by the complaint to be due. Interest may be allowed only to the extent to which it is claimed in the complaint.”

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

DATED:  March 5, 2024                                ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court