Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 21STCV30408, Date: 2022-08-22 Tentative Ruling
Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.
In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:
The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.
Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.
If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. 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 motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.
**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.
Case Number: 21STCV30408 Hearing Date: August 22, 2022 Dept: 31
REQUEST FOR ENTRY
OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
BACKGROUND
On
August 17, 2021, Plaintiff Robert T. Howard as an individual and as trustee of
the Howard Exemption Trust and Ann A. Howard Survivor’s Trust filed a Complaint
against Paul Kraus, Shannon Bradberry, and Does 1 through 100 for Breach of
Contract.
Proof
of Service for Defendant Paul Kraus was filed on January 18, 2022.
Proof
of Service for Shannon Bradberry was filed on February 02, 2022.
Default
was entered against Defendant Kraus on February 04, 2022.
Default
was entered against Defendant Bradberry on March 07, 2022.
On
March 21, 2022, Defense counsel appearing by limited scope represented to the
Court that he would be filing a motion to set aside the defaults. (Min. Or.
03/21/22.) To date, no motion to set aside the default has been filed.
On
July 06, 2022, Plaintiffs moved for Default Judgment.
Does
1 to 100 were dismissed on July 06, 2022.
Plaintiff
seeks judgment against Defendants Paul Kraus and Shannon Bradberry in the
amount of $178,953.94, per the CIV-100 form.
MOTION
Plaintiff
seeks judgment against Defendants in the total amount of $165,753.22
costing of:
· $141,218.00 in
Damages
· $10,642.22 in
Interest
· $1,150.00 in
Costs.
· $12,743.50 for Attorney Fees
Plaintiff alleges that between August 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021, Defendants breached the lease by failing to pay rent. (Howard Decl. ¶¶ 6, 11, Ex. 2, Ex. 3.) This resulted in a total loss of $141,218.00 for unpaid rent. (Id. at ¶ 12.)
When Defendants vacated the residence on June 30, 2021, they failed to leave the premises in “good condition” per the lease and Plaintiff incurred costs of $12,000.00 for repairs and remediation. (Id. at ¶¶ 11, 12, Ex. 4 “Receipt of Repairs”.)
Thus, Plaintiff’s has presented sufficient evidence of total damages
amounting to $153,218.00.
Plaintiff is not seeking prejudgment interest for the cost of repairs. (Howard Decl. 12.)
Plaintiff calculated the interest on rent owed at a 7.0% per annum: $141,218.00 divided by 365 times .07 equals $27.08 per day. (Howard Decl. ¶ 12.)
Since rent was due in full no later than June 1, 2021, Plaintiff
calculates that from June 2, 2021, to June 30, 2022, 393 days have passed.
Accordingly, 363 x $27.08 equals $10,642.44 in interest.
Since mediation did not result in a resolution, per the terms of the lease, Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees. (Howard Decl. ¶ 8; Compl. Ex. 1 at ¶ 40.)
Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate is $375.00 per hour. Plaintiff’s counsel attaches an invoice showing the billable hours for this case and requests attorney fees in the amount of $12,743.50. (Ex. 5.)
Plaintiff’s counsel asserts that Plaintiff has paid $11,993.50 in attorney fees and that an additional $750.00 is owed in anticipation of services in connection with this request for default judgment. (Long Dec. ¶ 3.)
Plaintiff’s counsel attached no proof that Plaintiff has paid $11,933.50 in attorney fees. Moreover, in calculating the hours spent working on this matter, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s counsel only spent 25 hours and 33 minutes on the matter, amounting to fees in the total of $9,581.25. Adding $750.00 for this motion, attorney’s fees amount to only $10,331.25, and not $12,743.50 as counsel claims.
Costs are listed as $1,150.00.
Conclusion
Accordingly, Plaintiff has only presented evidence to support a
judgment of $175,341.69, consisting of:
Plaintiff’s request for default judgment is deficient in that Plaintiff failed to file JUD-100 form and the costs listed on the CIV-100 are not supported by the evidence presented.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for default judgment is denied, without prejudice.
Plaintiff must address the above-noted
deficiencies.