Judge: Wesley L. Hsu, Case: 22PSCV00679, Date: 2023-04-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV00679    Hearing Date: April 20, 2023    Dept: L

Plaintiffs Rosalinda Rodriguez’s and Leslie Perez’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

Background   

Plaintiffs Rosalinda Rodriguez and Leslie Perez (“Plaintiffs”) allege as follows: Plaintiffs have been tenants at the property located at 1398 S. Gibbs, Pomona, CA 91766 (“subject property”) since on or about August 1, 2016. Defendant Emelia Ramirez (“Ramirez”) was responsible for managing and maintaining the subject property, but maintained same in a substandard condition and failed to make repairs, despite Plaintiffs’ complaints. Plaintiffs were forced to move out of the subject property.

On July 6, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Ramirez and Does 1-50 for:

1.      Failure to Provide Habitable Dwelling

2.      Breach of Covenant and Right to Quiet Enjoyment

3.      Private Nuisance

4.      Negligence

On August 25, 2022, Ramirez’s default was entered.

An Order to Show Cause Re: Default Judgment is set for April 20, 2023.

Discussion

Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is denied without prejudice. The following defects are noted:

1.      The court’s ecourt system reflects that on April 13, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the following

documents in support of their default prove-up application: (1) a proposed Default Judgment on Judicial Council Form JUD-100; (2) a Request for Entry of Default/Court Judgment on outdated Judicial Council Form CIV-100 [Rev. January 1, 2018]; (3) a Request for Dismissal of Does 1-50 on Judicial Council Form CIV-110; (4) a proof of service and (5) a two-page Declaration of Khalil Ahmad (“Ahmad”), Plaintiffs’ counsel. It is unclear how Plaintiffs’ counsel would have personal knowledge of the facts underlying Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs have not submitted declarations, nor have they submitted any documentary evidence (including, but not limited to, text messages, video recording(s), inspection report(s) and pictures, as references in ¶¶ 4-7 of Ahmad’s declaration).

2.      Again, Plaintiffs’ complaint states only that Plaintiffs’ damages are “in excess of

$25,000.00.” (Complaint, ¶ 39; see also, ¶ 46 [“Plaintiffs have suffered actual damages . . . in an amount to be determined at trial but in any event $25,000.00 or over”] and ¶ 55 [“Plaintiffs have suffered damages . . . in an amount to be proved at trial are [sic] $25,000.00 and over”].) Plaintiff, however, appears to seek $75,000.00 or more in damages. “[I]n all default judgments the demand sets a ceiling on recovery.” (Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824; Code Civ. Proc. § 580, subd. (a) [“The relief granted to the plaintiff, if there is no answer, cannot exceed that demanded in the complaint, in the statement required by Section 425.11, or in the statement provided for by Section 425.115 . . .”].)