Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 23STCV16983, Date: 2024-06-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV16983    Hearing Date: June 18, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Plaintiff Brian Whitaker (“Plaintiff”) requests entry of default judgment against Defendant Byte to Bite (California), LLC. Plaintiff seeks judgment in the total amount of $9,710.32, comprising $4,000.00 in damages, $1,770.32 in costs, and $3,940.00 in attorney fees.

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

First, Plaintiff seeks $200.00 in “other” unspecified costs. It is unclear if such unspecified costs are allowable under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5.

Second, Plaintiff’s “Application For Default Judgment By Court” filed with the request provides, inter alia, that “Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Defendant to provide accessible dining surfaces at the facility, in compliance with the ADAAG.” (Application at p. 9:13-14.) However, Plaintiff’s request for court judgment (Form CIV-100) and proposed judgment (Form JUD-100) do not appear to indicate that Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief.

The Court also notes that Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that Plaintiff seeks, inter alia,

“injunctive relief, compelling Defendants to remove all presently existing architectural barriers as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.” (Compl., p. 7:4-6.) This does not appear to exactly match the injunctive relief Plaintiff seeks in his “Application For Default Judgment By Court,” which is discussed above. The Court notes that that “¿[a] 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)¿.) ¿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.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for default judgment without prejudice. The Court will discuss further proceedings with Plaintiff at the hearing.

DATED:  June 18, 2024                                 ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court