Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 22PSCV00743, Date: 2023-03-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV00743    Hearing Date: March 20, 2023    Dept: O

Hearing DATE:                      Monday, March 20, 2023

RE:                                          SHREE GEMS INC vs ELBA JEWELRY SERVICES, LLC (22PSCV00743)

________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiff’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

Background

This is a complaint for open book account. Plaintiff Shree Gems Inc. alleges that within the last four years, Defendant has become indebted to Plaintiff on an open book account in the sum of $80,731.72.

On July 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed suit.

On September 15, 2022, default was entered against Defendant ELBA JEWELRY SERVICES, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DBA SOPHIA FIORI.

On October 31, 2022, Plaintiff filed an application for entry of default judgment, which on Tuesday, December 20, 2022 the court denied.

On January 31, 2023, Plaintiff refiled its application.

Discussion

The court previously denied Plaintiff’s application for the following reason:

[T]he court denies the application for the failure to explain the date of the breach and an explanation of damages. For one, the complaint states that “within the last four years” Defendant became indebted to Plaintiff, implying that Defendant has been in breach for four years. Yet, in the calculation of interest, Plaintiff claims that the breach occurred on June 7, 2021, which is but merely one year ago. In an attempt to clarify the matter, the court turns to Exhibit 1, a copy of the account (and the only submitted evidence). Exhibit 1, however, is merely numerous transactions dated to various dates; thus, it fails to substantiate Plaintiff’s contention that the breach occurred on June 7, 2021. Moreover, to the extent that the damages are the combined balances on the two reports ($70,798.62 plus $9,933.10+$80,731.72), it is not the court’s duty to perform Plaintiff’s calculation.

Now, while Plaintiff has filed a declaration, it does not address any of the court’s noted concerns.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the application is again denied without prejudice.