Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 24STCV31411, Date: 2025-05-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV31411    Hearing Date: May 22, 2025    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff 805 Westlake Flooring Company, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on November 27, 2024, against Defendants Steven Wayne Watkins and Teddy Dale Watkins (“Defendants”) for breach of contract and common counts.

DISCUSSION

There is one defect in Plaintiff’s default judgment packet. The total amount sought on CIV-100 is incorrectly stated as “$101,648” instead of $267,410.13. It is unclear where the incorrect number arose from. The Court intends to grant Plaintiff’s request for default judgement upon correction of the one defect.

            The following shows compliance with the other requirements for a default judgment prove-up.

Plaintiff served the summons and complaint by personal service to Steven Wayne Watkins on December 10, 2024, at 33 Eastbrooke Cir, Madison, MS 39110; and Teddy Dale Watkins on December 8, 2024, at 6764 Birmingport Rd, Mulga, AL 35118. (POS Steven Wayne Watkins; POS Teddy Dale Watkins.) The Request for Entry of Default was entered January 21, 2025, which is more than 30 days after service to both Defendants, the proof of service is signed, and the request was mailed to the same addresses where service was originally made. (CIV-100.)

There is no amended complaint filed after entry of default and Defendants did not answer or appear before default was entered.

All mandatory documents for the prove-up were submitted to the Court: CIV-100, JUD-100, summary of case, DOEs dismissal, competent declaration with admissible evidence attached as exhibits that show entitlement to damages. Plaintiff’s agent summarized the case, identifying the parties and the nature of the action. The exhibits attached to the declaration, which is properly signed and declares percipient knowledge, show Defendants are liable for the $239,128.20 that Plaintiff seeks in damages, indicated by a signed Promissory Note and Loan and Security Agreement and a signed Personal Guaranty. (Zhan Decl., Exhs. A, B.)

The Court received the Proposed Judgment Form, properly indicating a total amount of $267,410.13, comprising $239,128.20 in damages; $23,126.65 in interest; $4,281.28 in attorney’s fees; and $874.00 in costs. (JUD-100.) Interest computation is as follows: date of action (January 26, 2024) to date of calculation (January 13, 2025) is 353 days; 10% annually for 353 days results in $23,126.65. (Zhan Decl., ¶ 13.) Attorney’s fees is as follows: $239,128.20 minus $100,000 equals $139,128.20 times 1% equals $1,391.28 plus $2,890 results in $4,281.28. (Local Rule of the Court, rule 3.214; Zhan Decl., ¶ 13.) Attorney’s fees are provided within the agreements signed by the parties. (Zhan Decl. ¶ 13, Exh. A.)

The complaint is well pled and specifies damages claimed. (Complaint.) Plaintiff has shown liability as to each defendant and seeks the total amount from Defendants jointly and severally. Memorandum of costs is as follows: $435.00 in filing fees, $219.50 in process server’s fees to Steven Wayne Watkins, and $219.50 in process server’s fees to Teddy Dale Watkins, resulting in $874.00. (CIV-100; Zhan Decl., ¶ 13.)

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s request for default judgment against Defendant upon correction of the defect mentioned above. The Court orders Plaintiff to correct and refile the CIV-100.

DATED:  May 22, 2025

                                    ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet 

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court