Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 22VECV00729, Date: 2023-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22VECV00729    Hearing Date: February 7, 2023    Dept: W

DEPT W

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

 

Case No.

22VECV00729

Case Name:

Joan Dimartino v. Richard Baron, et al.

Defaulting Defendant(s):

Richard Baron and Baron Brothers, Inc.

OSC Date:

February 7, 2023

 

Amount:        

Damages:                                            $324,149.66

Interest:                                              $5,562.92

Attorney Fees:                                    $3,741.00

Costs:                                                  $532.01

Total:                                                   $333,985.59

 

On October 22, 2019, Defendants R. Baron and Baron Brothers, Inc. executed a Promissory Note in favor of Plaintiff Joan DiMartino. Plaintiff alleges all principal and interest under the October 2019 Note was due and payable the following year, on October 22, 2020 and on May 10, 2022, Plaintiff gave Notice of Default and Demand for payment to Defendants, which has yet to be cured.

 

On October 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against Defendants asserting a claim for breach of promissory note seeking $324,149.66 in damages.

 

Request for entry of default was entered December 1, 2022.  

 

TENTATIVE RULING:  DENY

 

This  court initially denied Plaintiff’s request for default judgment due to the initial complaint failing to include a demand amount. On October 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint seeking $324,149.66 in damages against Defendants.

 

However, as part of the damages, Plaintiff seeks $14,946.50 in attorney fees and $1,459.07 in costs. (Washton Decl. ¶27, 29.) Counsel does not provide what then the attorney fees and costs sought in CIV-100 Form are for. Moreover, Plaintiff also requests attorney fees in excess of the amount provided in Local Rule 3.214. Also, Plaintiff seeks $13.56 in costs for postage. Plaintiff is not entitled to costs for postage. (See CCP § 1033.5(b)(3); Ripley v. Pappadopoulos (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1616, 1627-28.) 

 

Additionally, the JUD-100 Form does not match the CIV-100 Form.   

 

Lastly, the CCP §585 declaration is by the counsel of record for Plaintiff, not by Plaintiff. The declaration must be under penalty of perjury by one with personal knowledge, establishing liability and damages. A declaration of an attorney with no firsthand knowledge of the facts is insufficient.