Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV01858, Date: 2025-03-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV01858    Hearing Date: March 10, 2025    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

MELISSA DOGONYARO, et al.,

                    Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

RALPH LEON PAUL,

 

                    Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

     CASE NO.:  23AHCV01858

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: EX PARTE APPLICATION IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

 

Dept. 3

8:30 a.m.

March 10, 2025

 

)

 

 

Plaintiffs Melissa Dogonyaro (aka “Lisa Yaro”, referred to herein as “Plaintiff Yaro”)) and Music Corner (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) apply ex parte for the entry of a default judgment against defendant Ralph Leon Paul (“Defendant”) in the amount of $93,314, consisting of $80,000 as demanded in the complaint, $12,600 in interest, and $714 in costs.

As an initial matter, Plaintiffs provide no basis for ex parte relief. A default prove-up hearing has been scheduled for April 18, 2025, and it is unclear why the entry of judgment cannot wait until then.

However, even if ex parte relief were available, Plaintiffs’ application for default judgment is deficient. First, the only amount of money identified in the Complaint is $50,000. Plaintiff Yaro’s request for an additional $30,000 in general damages due to emotional distress and misrepresentations is improper because there is no evidence that a statement of damages was ever served. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 585 [judgment cannot exceed amount stated in statement of damages].)

Second, even if a statement of damages were on file, the Complaint also does not contain any allegations demonstrating outrageous conduct by Defendant, nor does Plaintiff Yaro provide any information in her declaration evidencing any emotional distress she suffered. (Cochran v. Cochran (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 448, 494.)

Third, Plaintiffs do not show how they calculated the amount of prejudgment interest that is due. (CRC 3.1800, subd. (a)(3).)  

Fourth, the proposed judgment on Form JUD-100 does not indicate how the default judgment will be allocated between the two Plaintiffs.

Last, the Court notes that the entry of default against Defendant was in error because the proof of service on file with the Court is not on the mandatory Judicial Council Form POS-010, but on Form POS-040, which states plainly on the front page that it is not to be used to show service of a summons or complaint. Therefore, the Court will set an OSC re: Why Default Should Not Be Vacated for the same day as the default prove-up hearing, April 18, 2025. The OSC shall be discharged if a correct proof of service is on file with the Court no later than 5 court days before the hearing.

In light of the foregoing, the ex parte application is DENIED.

 

Dated this 10th day of March 2025

 

 

 

 

       William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

 

 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.