Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 22VECV00714, Date: 2022-09-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22VECV00714    Hearing Date: September 26, 2022    Dept: W

DEPT W

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Amount:                    

Damages:              $49,628.25

Interest:                n/a

Attorney Fees:      $8,637.50

Costs:                    $1,184.22 (unspecified process server and court document filing fees)

Total:                     $58,540.27

This is a breach of contract action arising out of a breach of a commercial lease.

On May 26, 2022, Plaintiff YS Properties, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed the complaint (“1AC”) against Hayk Shishoyan (“Shishoyan”), HATS Enterprises, LLC (“HATS”), HATS Enterprises, LLC  dba Encino Tailors (“Encino Tailors”) (collectively “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 25. The complaint contains two causes of action: (1) breach of written contract; and (2) breach of the guaranty.

On July 14, 2022, the Court entered default against Defendants.

On August 31, 2022, Plaintiff dismissed its claims against the Doe defendants.

Plaintiff now seeks entry of default judgment against Defendants in the total amount of $58,540.27.

TENTATIVE RULING:  DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff has submitted documentation showing a valid lease for the retail premises located at 15826 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 220-221, Encino, California 91436 (the “Premises”)

between HATS Enterprises as tenant, which was doing business as Encino Tailors, and Encino Center, LLC as landlord that included base rent of subject to increases and additional remedies for breach of lease. (Sohn Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A.) Shishoyan signed a guaranty of lease. (Id. Ex. B.) Plaintiff purchased the commercial premises located at 15826 Ventura Boulevard, Encino, California 91436, which includes the Premises. (Id. ¶ 5.) Hats Enterprises and Encino Tailors have defaulted under the lease. (Id. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff seeks rent from the time period of the breach of lease starting in or about April 2020. (Id. ¶ 8.)

The Court denies the application because the evidence submitted in terms of the calculation of the rent owed comes from an attorney demand letter. (Id. Ex. C.) Although the document appears authentic, the Court cannot presume it is. An individual with knowledge must provide the necessary foundation that the monthly rent due and owing starting in April 2020 totals the amount sought here. The Sohn Declaration is otherwise insufficient to establish this amount because it is generic without explanation as to this issue. (Id. ¶ 17.)

Attorney fees and costs are proper pursuant to the lease. (Id. Ex. A ¶ 31.) The calculation does not follows the standard default fee schedule. (Chung Decl. ¶¶ 7-8.) The sought amount for attorney fees exceeds the permissible amount pursuant to LASC Rule 3.214. To the extent that Plaintiff still wants to seek a higher amount, Plaintiff must adequately explain the reasonableness of the request, including why and how counsel devoted the stated hours for this action. Regarding costs, Plaintiff does not itemize the costs. (Id. ¶ 9.) It is unclear whether all the amounts are actually incurred and recoverable, especially when considering the process server served Defendants at the same location through the same individual.

Accordingly, the Court denies the application without prejudice. Plaintiff is to file supplemental papers to address these issues.