Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 24STCV01320, Date: 2024-08-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV01320 Hearing Date: August 16, 2024 Dept: 50
|
TORRANCE FLITE PARK, LLC, Plaintiff, vs. DONALD ORVAL SHAW, et
al., Defendants. |
Case No.: |
24STCV01320 |
|
Hearing Date: |
August 16, 2024 |
|
|
Hearing Time: |
10:00 a.m. |
|
|
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
RE: PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT |
||
Plaintiff Torrance Flite Park, LLC (“Plaintiff”) requests entry of
default judgment against Defendants Donald Orval Shaw and Advanced Tactics,
Inc. Plaintiff seeks judgment in the total amount of $125,467.38, comprising $119,716.33
in damages, $5,051.05 in interest, and $700.00 in costs.
The Court notes a few defects with the submitted default judgment
package.
First, paragraph 8 of the
Complaint in this action alleges that “[t]he following causes of action are
attached and the statements above apply to each (each complaint must have
one or more causes of action attached):…Breach of Contract.” (Compl., p. 2.,
emphasis in original.) However, it does not appear that any cause of action is
attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint. The Complaint does not appear to allege how
the subject promissory note was purportedly breached. The Court notes that “[i]t
is well established a default judgment cannot properly be based on a
complaint which fails to state a cause of action against the party defaulted
because, as Witkin explains, [a] defendant who fails to answer admits only
facts that are well pleaded.” (Falahati v. Kondo (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 823, 829 [internal
quotations omitted].)
Second, Item 6(b)(2) of
Plaintiff’s request for court judgment (Form CIV-100) states that the request
was mailed to, inter alia, “Daniel Orval Shaw.” (Emphasis added.)
This appears to be a typo, as the defendant in this action is Donald Orval
Shaw.
Third, this is an action on a
promissory note (Compl., ¶ 9), 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.)¿
Based on the foregoing, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for
default judgment without prejudice.
DATED: August 16, 2024 ________________________________
Hon. Teresa A.
Beaudet
Judge, Los
Angeles Superior Court