Case Number: BC491142    Hearing Date: July 22, 2014    Dept: 32

CASE NAME: Charles Ifeanyi, et al. v. Chinweoke Nkiru Erobu
CASE NO.: BC491142
HEARING DATE: 07/22/14
DEPARTMENT: 32
CALENDAR NO. : 8
SUBJECT: Request for Entry of Default Judgment
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Charles Ifeanyi and Agnes Ofili, in pro per
RESP. PARTY: None

COURT’S TENTATIVE RULING

Request for entry of default judgment GRANTED in the form of a declaration that Plaintiff Agnes Ofili is the owner of the $161,661.81 deposited by TD Ameritrade, Inc. with the court on May 16, 2014 and that such monies will be released to her. The court’s order is contingent upon Plaintiffs addressing the deficiencies discussed below at the hearing on July 22, 2014.

Deficiencies in the application:

1. Plaintiffs must submit a Request for Entry of Default Judgment on form CIV-100.
2. Plaintiffs must complete the declaration of non-military status on form CIV-100.
3. Plaintiffs must submit a Request for Dismissal of all Doe Defendants.
4. It appears from the minute order dated June 2, 2014 that Ameritrade has deposited $161,661.81 with the court on May 16, 2014. Therefore, the proposed judgment should be modified to indicate that these monies deposited by TD Ameritrade from the account in the name of Defendant are owned by Plaintiff Agnes Ofili and will be released to her. Plaintiffs should remove the request for $100,000 in damages from the default judgment.
5. Plaintiffs must indicate in the proposed judgment that no recovery is granted to Plaintiff Charles Ifeanyi. In the alternative, Plaintiffs must be prepared to cite authorities at the hearing suggesting Charles Ifeanyi has standing in light of the allegations and evidence that the $100,000 was Ms. Ofili’s savings. (See Compl. ¶ 7.)

Plaintiffs should be able to address these defects at the hearing on July 22, 2014. At the hearing, Plaintiffs should be prepared to complete and submit form CIV-100, including the declaration of non-military status. Plaintiffs should also be prepared to submit a request for dismissal of all Doe Defendants on form CIV-110.

At the hearing, Plaintiffs should be prepared to submit a new proposed judgment on form JUD-100 that removes Plaintiff Charles Ifeanyi from paragraph 5. Plaintiffs should leave paragraph 6 blank in its entirety, including paragraphs 6.a.(1) and (6). Plaintiffs should modify paragraph 7 to indicate that “Plaintiff Agnes Ofili is the owner of the $161,661.81 deposited by TD Ameritrade, Inc. with the court on May 16, 2014 and that these monies will be released forthwith to Plaintiff Agnes Ofili.”

ANALYSIS

In determining whether the plaintiff is entitled to an award of damages after the defendant has defaulted, the plaintiff is required to present evidence establishing a prima facie case for damages. (Johnson v. Stanhiser (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 357, 361-362.)

The court cannot award a default judgment greater than the amount pleaded in the complaint, including if the complaint does not specify the amount. (See Falahati v. Kondo (2005) 127 Cal.App. 4th 823, 830-831.)

“One case holds that a default judgment in an accounting action may exceed the amount requested in the complaint where defendant possesses the information upon which the accounting is to be based and therefore can calculate its exposure. In such a case, ‘the complaint need only specify the type of relief requested, and not the specific dollar amount sought.’” (Rutter, Civ. Pro. Before Trial ¶ 5:239.1.)

Here, in the proposed judgment on form JUD-100, Plaintiffs did not indicate in paragraph 6.a. that they requested a judgment for damages against Defendant. Although Plaintiffs did check box 6.a.(1), specifying damages of $100,000, they indicated in Paragraph 7 that they were requesting liquidation and delivery of an account held by TD Ameritrade. The complaint on file includes a cause of action for declaratory relief and also requests an accounting. The complaint also alleges that Plaintiffs gave $100,000 to Defendant that that Defendant was to “hold the money in Trust for Plaintiff and to provide accounting of any and all receipts of dividends and growth relating to the funds.” (Compl. ¶24.) Therefore, although the complaint only specifically referred to the $100,000 in initial funds, under the circumstances, a declaration that the entire $161,661.81 deposited from the account belongs to Plaintiff Ofili is appropriate. This amount would not be entered as a judgment of damages against Defendant.

As indicated above, it does not appear that Plaintiff Charles Ifeanyi owns the funds. (See Compl. ¶¶ 6-7.) Therefore, the declaration specified above should only apply to Plaintiff Ofili. If Plaintiffs disagree, they should be prepared to provide legal argument on this issue at the hearing.