Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 24STCP00792, Date: 2024-12-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCP00792    Hearing Date: December 3, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Petitioner The Cemetery and Funeral Bureau, Department of Consumer Affairs, State of California (“Petitioner”) requests entry of default judgment against Respondents Lincoln Memorial Park, Inc., and John Michael Mintz. 

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

First, Petitioner submitted a “[Proposed] Judgment in Favor of Petitioner the Cemetery and Funeral Bureau” providing that “[d]efault having been entered against Respondents Lincoln Memorial Park, Inc., and John Michael Mintz (‘Respondents’), and the application of Petitioner The Cemetery and Funeral Bureau for appointment of The Cemetery and Funeral Bureau as conservator over Respondents’ endowment care fund and special care fund having been granted, the Court here enters…JUDGMENT in favor of the Petitioner, The Cemetery and Funeral Bureau, Department of Consumer Affairs, State of California.” However, a request for default judgment is before the Court, not the foregoing application. In addition, the proposed judgment does not specify the specific relief Petitioner seeks. Rather, the proposed judgment provides that “the Court here enters…JUDGMENT in favor of the Petitioner, The Cemetery and Funeral Bureau, Department of Consumer Affairs, State of California.”  

Second, Petitioner submitted a “[Proposed] Order Granting the First Amended Petition of the Cemetery and Funeral Bureau and Appointing the Cemetery and Funeral Bureau as Conservator Over Lincoln Memorial Park Inc.’s Endowment Care Fund and Special Care Fund.” The proposed order provides, inter alia, that the Court “GRANTS THE FIRST AMENDED PETITION OF The Cemetery and Funeral Bureau, Department of Consumer Affairs, State of California.” However, Petitioner’s request for default judgment is before the Court, not Petitioner’s First Amended Verified Petition. In addition, the Court notes that a proposed judgment is required to be submitted in connection with the request for default judgment as opposed to a proposed order. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subdivision (a)(6), the request for default judgment must include “[a] proposed form of judgment.”

Third, the proposed order provides, inter alia, that the Court “ORDERS THAT The Cemetery and Funeral Bureau, Department of Consumer Affairs, State of California, is appointed as Conservator over Lincoln Memorial Park, Inc.’s endowment care fund and special care fund held by the American Funeral & Cemetery Trust Service for the maintenance and upkeep of Lincoln Memorial Park, Inc.” (Emphasis added.) However, this order appears to be inconsistent with the relief requested in Petitioner’s First Amended Verified Petition. The “Prayer” indicates that Petitioner seeks “[a]n order appointing the Cemetery and Funeral Bureau as a conservator over the Endowment Care Fund and Special Care Fund held by American Funeral & Cemetery Trust Services for the maintenance and upkeep of Lincoln Memorial Park Cemetery…” (First Amended Verified Petition, p. 4, emphasis added.) The proposed order refers to the entity “Lincoln Memorial Park, Inc.,” not Lincoln Memorial Park Cemetery. 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 Petitioner’s request for default judgment without prejudice. The Court will discuss with Petitioner a schedule for resubmission of the default judgment package.

DATED:  December 3, 2024                          ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court