Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 24STCV10204, Date: 2024-10-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV10204    Hearing Date: October 21, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Plaintiffs Northland THEA LLC, Northland THEA Portfolio LLC, Northland THEA Portfolio II LLC, Northland THEA Portfolio III LLC, and Northland THEA IV LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) appear to seek entry of default judgment against Defendant Tori Riley. Plaintiffs submitted a proposed judgment on August 29, 2024, indicating that Plaintiffs seek judgment in the total amount of $48,200.00, comprising $47,000.00 in damages and $1,200.00 in attorney’s fees.

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

First, Plaintiffs did not file a Request for Court Judgment (Form CIV-100). “A party seeking a default judgment on declarations must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Application to Enter Default) (form CIV-100)…” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a).)

Second, Plaintiffs have not submitted sufficient evidence to prove up the requested damages. Plaintiffs solely submit the declaration of their counsel in support of the request (the Declaration of Nadia Zivkov). Ms. Zivkov states, for example, that “Defendants entered into the Lease, attached hereto as Exhibit A, whereby pursuant to Section 6 of the Lease they agreed to pay $3,099.00 per month for rent.” (Zivkov Decl., ¶ 1, p. 3.) Ms. Zivkov also states that “[a]s depicted in the Resident Ledger for Defendants, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, Defendants owe Plaintiffs $52,931.52 in past-due rent and related fees and charges that accrued until they vacated the premises on September 27, 2023…” (Zivkov Decl., ¶ 9, p. 3.) The Court does not find that Plaintiffs’ counsel has demonstrated a foundation of personal knowledge to make such statements.  

Lastly, the Court notes that on July 15, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a request for entry of default. This request includes a “Declaration of nonmilitary status” providing, inter alia, that “[w]e do not know Defendant Tori Riley’s full birthday, which is required to run a search at: https://scra.dmdc.osd.mil/. We were therefore unable to confirm if Defendant is not in the U.S. military service.” (Plaintiffs’ July 15, 2024 Request for Default, Item 8(f).) Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subdivision (a)(5), a party seeking a default judgment must file “[a] declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant against whom judgment is sought.” Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2024) ¶ 5:198 provides, inter alia, that “federal law prohibits entry of a default judgment against any individual defendant without a declaration showing that the defendant is not in military service. [50 USC § 3931(b)(1)]…If unable to determine whether defendant is in military service, the court may require plaintiff to post a bond to indemnify defendant against any loss if the judgment is later set aside. [See 50 USC § 3931(b)(3)].” (Emphasis in original.)

Specifically, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. section 3931, subdivision (b)(1), “[i]n any action or proceeding covered by this section, the court, before entering judgment for the plaintiff, shall require the plaintiff to file with the court an affidavit—(A) stating whether or not the defendant is in military service and showing necessary facts to support the affidavit; or (B) if the plaintiff is unable to determine whether or not the defendant is in military service, stating that the plaintiff is unable to determine whether or not the defendant is in military service.” In addition, 50 U.S.C. section 3931, subdivision (b)(3) provides as follows:

“If based upon the affidavits filed in such an action, the court is unable to determine whether the defendant is in military service, the court, before entering judgment, may require the plaintiff to file a bond in an amount approved by the court. If the defendant is later found to be in military service, the bond shall be available to indemnify the defendant against any loss or damage the defendant may suffer by reason of any judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant, should the judgment be set aside in whole or in part. The bond shall remain in effect until expiration of the time for appeal and setting aside of a judgment under applicable Federal or State law or regulation or under any applicable ordinance of a political subdivision of a State. The court may issue such orders or enter such judgments as the court determines necessary to protect the rights of the defendant under this Act [50 USCS §§ 3901 et seq.].”

As set forth herein, Plaintiffs’ apparent request for default judgment is denied without prejudice. However, if any future request for default judgment by Plaintiffs is granted, and “based upon the affidavits filed in [this] action, the court is unable to determine whether the defendant is in military service, the court, before entering judgment, may require [Plaintiffs] to file a bond in an amount approved by the court.” (50 U.S.C. § 3931, subd. (b)(3).)

Based on the foregoing, the Court denies the request for default judgment without prejudice. The Court will discuss with Plaintiffs a schedule for resubmission of the default judgment package.

DATED:  October 21, 2024  

                                                                        ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court