Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 23STCV13959, Date: 2024-02-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV13959    Hearing Date: February 8, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

 

MICHELLE PESCE,

                        Plaintiff,

            vs.

1745 SAN YSIDRO DRIVE, LLC, et al.,

                        Defendants.

Case No.:

23STCV13959

Hearing Date:

February 8, 2024

Hearing Time:

10:00 a.m. 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: 

 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

 

           

Plaintiff Michelle Pesce (“Plaintiff”) requests entry of default judgment against Defendants 1745 San Ysidro Drive, LLC and Christian Toxboe (jointly, “Defendants”). Plaintiff seeks judgment in the total amount of $159,174.20, comprising $100,000.00 in damages, $55,228.32 in prejudgment interest, $3,442.28 in attorney’s fees, and $503.60 in costs. Plaintiff also seeks interest at the daily rate of $54.79 from January 11, 2024 to the date the judgment is entered.

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

First, Plaintiff states that “[i]nterest has accrued on the principal balance of $100,000.00 at the agreed rate of 20% interest.” (Pesce Decl., ¶ 5.) Pursuant to LA¿SC rule 3.206¿, “[i]f interest is requested in excess of the usury limitations of ¿California Constitution Article XV, Section 1¿, proof must be presented of plaintiff’s exemption from the usury limitations unless an exemption has been pleaded in the complaint and admitted by the entry of default.” The Complaint does not appear to plead any exemption from the usury limitations and Plaintiff has not provided an explanation for her entitlement to any exemption.  

Second, Item 2(f) of the requests (Forms CIV-100) pertaining to both Defendants are blank. Thus, the total amount sought is not listed in either request.   

            Third, this is an action on a promissory note (Compl., ¶ 7, Ex. A), but Plaintiff has not provided the original of the note. In lieu of the original, Plaintiff may also provide a declaration explaining loss or unavailability, along with a proposed order to accept a copy in lieu of the original. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1806; Kahn v. Lasorda's Dugout, Inc. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1118, 1124.)

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

 

DATED:  February 8, 2024                            ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court