Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 23STCV23863, Date: 2025-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV23863    Hearing Date: February 6, 2025    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Plaintiff Cecilia Martinez (“Plaintiff”) appears to seek entry of default judgment against Defendants Javier Francisco Lopez aka Francisco Javier Lopez, individually and dba UBK Cabinet, dba Universal Brothers Kitchens, dba Universal Brothers Kitchens & Bathrooms; UBK Cabinet; and Does 1-10 inclusive. Plaintiff seeks judgment in the total amount of $179,038.00, comprising $175,000.00 in damages, $2,010.00 in costs, and $2,018.00 in attorney’s fees.  

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

            First, Plaintiff appears to seek default judgment against Defendant UBK Cabinet. However, on January 29, 2024, the Court issued an Order of Dismissal providing, inter alia, that “it is hereby ordered that the within action is dismissed…without prejudice as to…UBK Cabinet.”

            Second, Plaintiff also appears to seek default judgment against “Does 1-10.” Plaintiff does not appear to provide any legal authority demonstrating that she may obtain a default judgment against “Does 1-10.” In addition, it does not appear that default has been entered against “Does 1-10.”

Third, Plaintiff seeks $2,018.00 in attorney’s fees. However, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not appear to allege that Plaintiff seeks attorney’s fees. The Court notes that ¿¿¿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.)¿¿

Fourth, Item 7 of Plaintiff’s request for default judgment (the memorandum of costs) is blank. The Court notes that a request for default judgment must include “[a] memorandum of costs and disbursements.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a)(4).)

Fifth, Plaintiff indicates that she seeks $175,000.00 “for repair cost [sic] to restore [her] property to [sic] habitable condition.” (Martinez Decl., ¶ 7.) However, Plaintiff does not appear to provide any evidence demonstrating that Plaintiff incurred such damages.

Sixth, Plaintiff indicates that she seeks “[p]unitive damages to punish Defendants for their fraudulent and egregious conduct.” (Martinez Decl., ¶ 7.) The Court notes that pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.115, subdivision (b), “[t]he plaintiff preserves the right to seek punitive damages pursuant to Section 3294 of the Civil Code on a default judgment by serving upon the defendant the following statement, or its substantial equivalent…” ((See Id., § 425.115, subd. (b).) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.115, subdivision (f), “[t]he plaintiff shall serve the statement upon the defendant pursuant to this section before a default may be taken, if the motion for default judgment includes a request for punitive damages.” It does not appear that Plaintiff filed or served any such statement. In addition, Plaintiff has not provided any meaningful evidence of defendant’s financial condition to support an award for punitive damages. (Adams v. Murakami (1991) 54 Cal.3d 105, 114 (evidence of defendant’s financial condition required to support punitive damages)¿¿; ¿¿Lara v. Cadag (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1061, 1064-1065 [meaningful evidence required and evidence of earnings is not by itself sufficient]¿¿.)¿

Based on the foregoing, 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:  February 6, 2024                            ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet 

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court