Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 23STCV19615, Date: 2024-04-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV19615    Hearing Date: April 29, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Plaintiff BCS Investment Group, LLC d.b.a. Kaleidoscope Services (“Plaintiff”) requests entry of default judgment against Defendant SameSky Health Inc., formerly known as ConsejoSano, Inc. Plaintiff seeks judgment in the total amount of $159,145.47, comprising $158,497.75 in damages and $647.72 in costs.  

The Court notes a few defects with the submitted default judgment package.

First, Item 6 of the Request for Court Judgment (Form CIV-100) is blank. Thus, it is unclear if the Request was served.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 587, “[a]n application by a plaintiff for entry of default under subdivision (a), (b), or (c) of Section 585 or Section 586 shall include an affidavit stating that a copy of the application has been mailed to the defendant’s attorney of record or, if none, to the defendant at his or her last known address and the date on which the copy was mailed. If no such address of the defendant is known to the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, the affidavit shall state that fact. No default under subdivision (a), (b), or (c) of Section 585 or Section 586 shall be entered, unless the affidavit is filed. The nonreceipt of the notice shall not invalidate or constitute ground for setting aside any judgment.” In Bae v. T.D. Service Co. of Arizona (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 89, 108, footnote 15, the Court observed as follows:

“In a related contention, appellant argues that it was not obliged to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 587 in seeking a default judgment, noting that a defendant ordinarily is not entitled to notice of proceedings after entry of default (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010). We observe that appellate courts and treatises have interpreted the phrase “application … for entry of default” in Code of Civil Procedure section 587 to include applications for entry of a default judgment. (See Rodriguez, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at pp. 535–538 [discussing cases]; see also Harris, supra, 74 Cal.App.3d at p. 100 [“The statute provides that no application for default judgment shall be heard, and no default entered, unless such an affidavit has been filed.”]; Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2015) ¶ 5:187, p. 5-48 [“As in all defaults,” an affidavit complying with Code Civ. Proc., § 587 must be filed with the application for default judgment.]; 6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra, Proceedings Without Trial, § 162, p. 603 [“A copy of the application for entry of default or for judgment on the default must be mailed to the defendant’s attorney of record ….”]; 6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra, § 164, p. 605.)”

Second, Plaintiff submitted a specially prepared proposed judgment and did not use Form JUD-100. The Court will require the use of Form JUD-100 because this does not appear to be a case where a lengthy or detailed judgment is necessary. (See LASC Rule 3.213(b).)

Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for default judgment without prejudice. The Court will discuss with Plaintiff a schedule for resubmission of the default judgment package.

DATED:  April 29, 2024                                ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court