Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 20STLC01995, Date: 2023-04-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STLC01995 Hearing Date: April 5, 2023 Dept: 48
20STLC01995 4425 MAPLEWOOD LLC, vs JESSE PIMENTEL, et al.
Ex Parte April 5, 2023
Before the Court is the Plaintiff’s ex parte application seeking the entry of a default judgment against Defendant Jesse Pimentel. The Court shall neither grant nor deny this application but instead allow the assigned judge, Thomas Long, to address this matter. The hearing is continued to April __ at ___ a.m. in Dept. 48.
The case has been resolved as to all other defendants, and only defaulted defendant Jesse Pimentel remains for resolution. Trial is set for June 26, 2023.
However, this appears to this bench officer as an improper ex parte application as there are no exigencies that suggest that this cannot be handled in the ordinary course as are other default judgment requests like this one.
Plaintiff claims that it requires ex parte relief as:
“Plaintiff will be irreparably harmed if the Court does not grant this ex-parte application because Plaintiff can not participate at trial which is set for June 26, 2023 when the Court has already entered a default against Defendant Jesse Pimentel.” (Ex Parte Application pg. 4:21-23.)
This action was filed on February 28, 2020. It seeks unpaid rent. The First Amended Complaint was filed on March 3, 2020. The case began as a limited jurisdiction case. Therefore, the Court lacked the jurisdiction to grant a judgment in excess of $25,000.
The prayer in the FAC recites that Plaintiff seeks:
“1. Damages for wrongfully withholding possession in an amount according to proof, but in no event more than $25,000;
2. Past due rent in the amount according to proof, but in an amount (when added to other damages) no more than $25,000.”
The case was reclassified as an unlimited jurisdiction case on September 22, 2020.
The Proof of Service showing service on Jesse Pimentel (filed 12/16/2020) states that he was served on March 30, 2020 with the First Amended Complaint and other documents. Obviously, any service on March 30, 2020 would not have included notice that the case had been reclassified as an unlimited jurisdiction case as that had not yet happened. Hence Pimentel would not have been on notice that he was at risk of suffering a judgment in excess of the court’s jurisdiction of $25,000.
Another amended proof of service filed June 28, 2021 shows a second service of the First Amended Complaint and related documents on Jesse Pimentel on April 24, 2021. It does not appear to include any notice that the case had been reclassified as unlimited jurisdiction.
On June 28, 2021 the Clerk entered the default of Jesse Pimentel on the First Amended Complaint.
On June 29, 2021 a Second Amended Complaint was filed. This was superseded by a Third Amended Complaint filed on October 29, 2021. The default of Jesse Pimentel predated these amended complaints, and therefore Plaintiff does not appear to be entitled to a default judgment based on the Second or Third Amended Complaint, but rather is limited to the relief sought in the First Amended Complaint.
The Judgment sought by Plaintiff is for compensatory damages in the amount of $69,327.65.
The matter is continued to April __, 2023 at ____ a.m. for resolution by Judge Long.