Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 22PSCV00009, Date: 2023-01-24 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

Case Number: 22PSCV00009    Hearing Date: January 24, 2023    Dept: O

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 an application for default judgment.

On August 25, 2022, the court denied Plaintiff’s application.

On November 14, 2022, Plaintiff re-filed its application.

Discussion

Previously, the court denied Plaintiff’s application for a host of reasons.

While many of the deficiencies have been cured,[1] the court still takes issue with the application, notably on the issue of damages and (lack of) supporting evidence thereof.

As a prefatory matter, the complaint limits the damages. In other words, a plaintiff may not recover more than the amount alleged in the complaint.

Here, Plaintiffs’ “prayer for relief” is as follows:

Damages, out of pocket costs, and loss of personal property in an amount to be proven at the time of trial in the amount of $44,131; b. Loss of earnings and/or earning potential in the amount of $20,000;

c. Emotional distress and mental suffering in an amount to be determined at trial;

d. Restitution of unlawfully charged rent in the amount of $2,000.

(Complaint p. 13) (emphasis added).

Now, while the application for default judgment may seek $66,131 on “demand of complaint,”[2] it seeks more than alleged on the complaint by seeking special damages in the amount of $56,920 and general damages in the amount of $64,750.[3]

First, however, there appears to be an error with the damages sought because the application seeks entry of default judgment in the amount of $147,710.48, but the individual costs far exceed that amount ($66,131+$56,920+$64,750=$187,801).

Second, as to the exhibits to support such damages, the court finds them insufficient and/or unclear. For example, Plaintiffs claim that material expenses amounted to $930. However, the Home Depot receipts do not substantiate such an expenditure. (See Exhibit 4 [$44.94 + $23.90+$151.58 + $122.57=$298.05, which is not $930.]) To the extent Plaintiffs allege the original receipts got lost, they offer no other evidence (e.g., credit card statement when the receipts show payment by card, reasonably implying the other purchases were made with card).

All in all, the application is not clear nor is the supported evidence. If Plaintiffs seek to re-file their application, the court requests the material be organized in a different manner.[4]

Conclusion