Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 22PSCV00009, Date: 2022-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV00009    Hearing Date: August 25, 2022    Dept: R

Dana Trujillo, et al. v. Jaye Uribe (22PSCV00009)

______________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiffs’ APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs’ APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT is DENIED without prejudice.

Background

This case arises from a lease agreement. Plaintiffs Dana Trujillo and Noel Saavedra (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege the following against Defendant Jaye Uribe (“Defendant”): Plaintiffs leased a premise from Defendant. Plaintiffs agreed that in addition to paying rent, they would make repairs to the property in return for living there. Plaintiffs’ sons later moved in, but “Defendant knowingly and willfully harassed Plaintiffs by calling the police accusing Plaintiffs’ sons of trespassing on the property.” On another occasion, Defendant turned off Plaintiffs’ water; for three weeks Plaintiffs were without water and had to access camping showers. On or about August 2, 2021, Defendant ordered Plaintiffs to vacate the property and cut the Plaintiffs’ locks on the gate. Furthermore, Plaintiffs were required to live in a motel, saw an individual on the property thrown away their personal property, and Defendant withheld access to Plaintiffs’ trailer.

On January 5, 2022, Plaintiffs files suit against Defendant for:

1. Violation Of CCP §789.3- Constructive Eviction

2. Violation Of CCP §1159- Forcible Entry

3. Breach Of Warranty Of Habitability

4. Conversion

5. Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress

6. Private Nuisance

7. Breach Of Contract

8. Breach Of Covenant Of Quiet Enjoyment

9. Violation Of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 Et Seq. – Unfair Competition

10. Negligence

On August 8, 2022, default was entered. That same day, Plaintiffs filed the instant application for default judgment.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 585 permits entry of a judgment after a Defendant has failed to timely answer after being properly served.  A party seeking judgment on the default by the Court must file a Request for Court Judgment, and: (1) a brief summary of the case; (2) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3) interest computations as necessary; (4) a memorandum of costs and disbursements; (5) a proposed form of judgment; (6) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought; (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under CCP § 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (8) exhibits as necessary; and (9) a request for attorneys’ fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties.  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1800.) 

Discussion

Plaintiffs seek default judgment against Defendant in the total amount of $77,556.60. The break-down is as follows:

Demand of Complaint:           $66,131.00,

Interest:                                   $6,613.10, and

Attorney Fees:                        $4,812.50

The following defects have been noted:

1.      Attorney Fees

Plaintiff has not demonstrated whether statute or the agreement of the parties allows for recovery of attorney fees.

2.      Doe Defendants

Doe Defendants have not been dismissed.

3.      Evidence

Plaintiffs’ application for default judgment does not provide evidence (aside from the declaration of Plaintiffs) to support its damages.

4.      Interest

Plaintiffs is to provide interest computations. The declaration of Counsel says nothing more than “Applying the 10% per annum legal pre-judgment interest rate as provided by statute, I calculated the pre-judgment interest requested in the Plaintiff’s application for default as $6,613.10 by multiplying the damages stated in the complaint with the legal interest rate.” This does not provide the court with the date Defendant was in breach and the number of days Defendant was in breach.

5.      Summary of the Case

No summary of the case has been provided. This is of import because the complaint alleges that Plaintiffs agreed that in addition to paying rent, they would make repairs to the property in return for living there, yet the declaration of Plaintiff Noel Saavedra provides a computation of repairs, indicating compensation is sought. 

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the application is DENIED without prejudice.