SANDMAN INC. DBA STAR CONCRETE vs FUERTE BUILDING COMPANY, et al.

25CV106820: SANDMAN INC. DBA STAR CONCRETE vs FUERTE BUILDING COMPANY, et al. 07/28/2026 Case Management Conference and Compliance Hearing re ADR Completion in Department 20

Tentative Ruling - 07/27/2026 Karin Schwartz

Parties to appear.

The Court does not appear to have a physical courtesy copy of the default judgment package. Based on its review of the package on the online register of actions, the Court is inclined to DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

The default entered May 7, 2025 remains in effect. The resubmitted package cures the four Judicial Council form defects identified in the Court's May 13, 2026 order but may not be entered for the following reasons.

1. No sum demanded. On default, relief may not exceed the amount demanded in the operative pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 580, subd. (a), 585, subd. (b).) The cross-complaint prays only for "general damages, according to proof" and "special damages, according to proof," and alleges no dollar amount. A prayer according to proof, with no specific sum alleged in the pleading, will not support a money default judgment; the amount demanded is treated as zero and any award exceeds it. (Yu v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 1024, 1032.) It appears that cross-complainants will need to amend the cross-complaint to state the amount demanded (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.10, subd. (a)(2)) and serve the amended pleading, which reopens the default.

2. Limited civil cap. The action is classified as a limited civil case, in which relief may not exceed $35,000. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 85, subd. (a), 580, subd. (b)(1).) The proposed judgment is $82,739.63, including $63,026.51 in damages. The record does not show reclassification to unlimited civil or payment of the reclassification fee; absent payment, the case remains a limited civil case. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 403.030, 403.060, subd. (b); Gov. Code, § 70619.) Crosscomplainants must reclassify and pay the fee or limit the judgment to the $35,000 maximum.

3. Damages not established. (Code Civ. Proc., § 585, subd. (d).) Contract damages are limited to the detriment proximately caused by the breach. (Civ. Code, § 3300.) The application seeks both the full $38,800 paid to the cross-defendants and the full $24,226.51 paid to a replacement contractor, which appears to duplicate recovery rather than measure the net loss. The prove-up does not tie the $24,226.51 to corrective work; several replacement-contractor line items describe new or upgraded scope (travertine caps and veneer, porch-roof and pergola demolition, bluestone crawl-space covers, column rebuilds) rather than repair of the contracted driveway and artificial-grass work. The supporting declaration also recites payments "totaled $38,000," while the itemized checks total $38,800.

4. Prejudgment interest. Interest runs only on damages that are certain or capable of being made certain by calculation. (Civ. Code, § 3287, subd. (a).) Interest is claimed on the entire 25CV106820: SANDMAN INC. DBA STAR CONCRETE vs FUERTE BUILDING COMPANY, et al. 07/28/2026 Case Management Conference and Compliance Hearing re ADR Completion in Department 20 $63,026.51 from April 3, 2025, though the repair costs are disputed in amount and several were incurred after that date. The accrual date and interest-bearing base must be supported.

5. Attorney fees. Fees must be requested with the default papers (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a)(9)) and are recoverable only as to the contract that authorizes them. (Civ. Code, § 1717.) The billing includes substantial time defending the separate Sandman mechanic's-lien claim and obtaining its dismissal, which must be apportioned out.

6. Corrections to the proposed judgment and CIV-100. The operative default was entered May 7, 2025; the proposed judgment's recital that default was entered April 3, 2025 states the service date and is incorrect, and the default-entry stamps on the later court-judgment applications are redundant. CIV-100 item 1c (defendants whose default is entered) is not completed on the current request. The caption is inconsistent — the proofs of service state "UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION" while the balance of the papers state "LIMITED." The proposed judgment misspells cross-defendant "Fuerte" as "Fuerto" and combines fees and costs; fees ($11,162.50) and costs ($987.44) should be stated separately.