Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 21STCV40885, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 21STCV40885    Hearing Date: January 9, 2024    Dept: 48

 

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

KH CAPITAL, LLC,

                        Plaintiff,

            vs.

 

JOEL ZUBAID, et al.,

 

                        Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO.: 21STCV40885

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT

 

Dept. 48

8:30 a.m.

January 9, 2024

 

 

On February 15, 2022, Plaintiff CNP Holdings LLC filed a first amended complaint against Defendants Joel Zubaid, Sanittek, CNN Logistics Inc., and Julian Rebiga.  The Court previously entered default and judgment against Joel Zubaid and Sanittek.

On December 4, 2023, the Court struck the answer of CNN Logistics Inc. and placed it in default.  On December 18, 2023, the Court struck the answer of Julian Rebiga and placed him in default.

On December 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed a proposed judgment against CNN Logistics Inc. and Julian Rebiga.  Plaintiff did not file the required Form CIV-100 to request entry of default judgment.

Plaintiff seeks a judgment of $1,068,480.00 against CNN Logistics Inc. and Julian Rebiga, consisting of $568,480.00 in damages and $500,000.00 in punitive damages.

“‘Plaintiffs in a default judgment proceeding must prove they are entitled to the damages claimed.’ [Citation].”  (Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 288.)  “[T]he plaintiff must affirmatively establish his entitlement to the specific judgment requested.”  (Id. at p. 287.)  Plaintiff provides no evidence to support the requested damages.

Additionally, “[a]n award of punitive damages hinges on three factors: the reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct; the reasonableness of the relationship between the award and the plaintiff’s harm; and, in view of the defendant’s financial condition, the amount necessary to punish him or her and discourage future wrongful conduct.”  (Kelly v. Haag (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 910, 914.)  Plaintiff provides no evidence of Defendants’ financial condition, so the Court cannot conclude whether $500,000.00 in punitive damages is reasonable.  Additionally, there is no evidence that Plaintiff served a Statement of Damages on Defendants for the FAC prior to entry of default.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 425.115, subd. (f).)

The request for entry of default judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

The Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Failure to Enter Default Judgment scheduled for 03/22/2024 at 8:30 AM in Department 48 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse remains on calendar.

Clerk to give notice.

 

         Dated this 9th day of January 2024

 

 

 

 

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court