Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: LAM16K07779, Date: 2023-02-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: LAM16K07779 Hearing Date: February 2, 2023 Dept: 50
THERE ARE TWO TENTATIVES:
|
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. MARISA ABBOTT, et
al., Defendants. |
Case No.: |
LAM16K07779 |
|
Hearing Date: |
February 2, 2023 |
|
|
Hearing Time: |
10:00 a.m. |
|
|
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
RE: PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT |
||
Plaintiff Los Angeles
Unified School District (“Plaintiff”) requests entry of default judgment
against Defendant Therese Liegey (“Liegey”). Plaintiff seeks judgment in the
total amount of $30,705.74,
comprising $17,509.28 demanded
in the Complaint, $13,134.46 in
interest, and $62.00 in
costs. Plaintiff also seeks daily
damages of $ 4.7971 per day beginning on December 17, 2022.
The Court notes that Item 6 (Declaration of Mailing) of the
Request for Court Judgment is blank. Pursuant to
“In a related
contention, appellant argues that it was not obliged to comply with Code
of Civil Procedure section 587 in seeking a default judgment, noting that
a defendant ordinarily is not entitled to notice of proceedings after entry of
default (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010). We
observe that appellate courts and treatises have interpreted the phrase
“application … for entry of default” in Code of Civil Procedure section
587 to include applications for entry of a default judgment. (See Rodriguez, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at pp.
535–538 [discussing cases]; see also Harris, supra, 74 Cal.App.3d at p.
100 [“The statute provides that no application for default judgment shall
be heard, and no default entered, unless such an affidavit has been filed.”];
Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter
Group 2015) ¶ 5:187, p. 5-48 [“As in all defaults,” an affidavit complying
with Code Civ. Proc., § 587 must be filed with the application for
default judgment.]; 6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra, Proceedings Without Trial, § 162, p. 603
[“A copy of the application for entry of default or for judgment on the default
must be mailed to the defendant's attorney of record ….”]; 6 Witkin, Cal.
Procedure, supra, § 164,
p. 605.)”
In addition, the Court notes that although Plaintiff indicates that default was entered against Liegey
on May 31, 2017, the Court is unable
to find any Request for Entry of Default filed on that date indicating that
default was entered as to Liegey.
Based on the foregoing, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for
default judgment without prejudice. Plaintiff is ordered to refile and serve
the default judgment package on or before ____________. The hearing thereon is
set on ____________ at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 50.
DATED: February 2, 2023 ________________________________
Hon. Teresa A.
Beaudet
Judge, Los
Angeles Superior Court
|
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. MARISA ABBOTT, et
al., Defendants. |
Case No.: |
LAM16K07779 |
|
Hearing Date: |
February 2, 2023 |
|
|
Hearing Time: |
10:00 a.m. |
|
|
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
RE: PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT |
||
Plaintiff Los Angeles
Unified School District (“Plaintiff”) requests entry of default judgment
against Defendant Corinne Bello (“Bello”). Plaintiff seeks judgment in the
total amount of $30,014.04,
comprising $16,779.26 demanded
in the Complaint, $13,032.78 in
interest, and $202.00 in
costs. Plaintiff also seeks daily
damages of $4.5971 per day beginning on December 22, 2022.
The Court notes that Item 6 (Declaration of Mailing) of the
Request for Court Judgment is blank. Pursuant to
“In a related
contention, appellant argues that it was not obliged to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 587 in seeking a
default judgment, noting that a defendant ordinarily is not entitled to notice
of proceedings after entry of default (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010). We observe that appellate courts
and treatises have interpreted the phrase “application … for entry of default”
in Code of Civil Procedure section 587 to
include applications for entry of a default judgment. (See Rodriguez, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at pp.
535–538 [discussing cases]; see also Harris, supra, 74
Cal.App.3d at p. 100 [“The statute provides that no application for
default judgment shall be heard, and no default entered, unless such an
affidavit has been filed.”]; Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil
Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2015) ¶ 5:187, p. 5-48 [“As in all
defaults,” an affidavit complying with Code Civ.
Proc., § 587 must be filed with the application for default
judgment.]; 6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra, Proceedings Without Trial, § 162, p. 603 [“A copy of the application for entry of
default or for judgment on the default must be mailed to the defendant's
attorney of record ….”]; 6 Witkin, Cal.
Procedure, supra, § 164,
p. 605.)”
In addition, the Court notes that although Plaintiff indicates that default was entered against Bello on March 20, 2017, the Court is unable to
find any Request for Entry of Default filed on that date indicating that
default was entered as to Bello.
Based on the foregoing, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for
default judgment without prejudice. Plaintiff is ordered to refile and serve
the default judgment package on or before ____________. The hearing thereon is
set on ____________ at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 50.
DATED: February 2, 2023 ________________________________
Hon. Teresa A.
Beaudet
Judge, Los
Angeles Superior Court