SHAHANEH A LIMONADI ET AL VS IKE A NWANONENYI

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC605900    Hearing Date: January 06, 2020    Dept: 74

BC605900 LIMONADI VS NWANONENYI

Plaintiffs’ Request for Entry of Default Judgment; OSC re Dismissal for Failure to Obtain Default Judgment

TENTATIVE RULING: The request for entry of default judgment is DENIED. As this case is over four years old and Plaintiffs have had ample opportunity to obtain default judgment, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Plaintiffs’ previous request for entry of default judgment was rejected on May 21, 2019. Plaintiffs were ordered to resubmit the default judgment package within 10 days on October 8, 2019. Plaintiffs filed a declaration pursuant to CCP section 585 to support their request for default judgment on October 18, 2019. However, Plaintiffs did not resubmit the default judgment package until December 9, 2019. Plaintiffs only submitted a physical copy of the default judgment package to the Court and did not e-file the default judgment package papers.

The declaration of mailing is not signed on the CIV-100 Form. There are also no other indications that the request for entry of default judgment was served on Defendant.

Aside from the lack of proof of service of the request for entry of default judgment, Plaintiffs’ CCP section 585 declarations are insufficient to support the amount of damages sought. According to Plaintiffs, they arrived at the value of the items listed in the statement of damages by running a search using the Google search engine to locate pictures of the items and the prices of the items. Plaintiffs further declare that some items brought from Iran were treated as genuine articles and not “knock offs” and that they used the lower values of the items purchased in the United States in order to account for the fact that their items were not new. Plaintiffs’ declarations are insufficient to support the value of the items as internet search results widely vary and are not reliable sources of the value of the items. It is also unclear whether the exact same items were found as the items are vaguely described, some are improperly grouped together under a single total value, and there are no search printouts of the search results to support the values set forth in the attachments to the declarations. To this extent, the item values set forth in the declarations are speculative. In order to properly prove up the value of the items and obtain the requested damages, Plaintiffs must submit an appraisal report from an appraisal expert.

Additionally, based on the Plaintiffs’ declarations, it appears Plaintiffs are seeking a return of the items or payment for the items by Defendant. Plaintiffs may not seek alternative remedies at this stage of the action. Plaintiffs must elect either a judgment entitling them to a return of their items or a judgment entitling them to the value of the items.

A review of the proposed judgment also shows that Plaintiffs are only seeking damages pursuant to their conversion cause of action. To this extent, Plaintiffs should submit a request for dismissal of the first cause of action for fraud and intentional deceit and third cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Based on the foregoing, the request for entry of default judgment is denied.

This case is over four years old. As plaintiffs have had ample opportunity to obtain default judgment, this case is dismissed without prejudice.