Defendant/Cross-Complainant Price Cars SR, LLC’s Motion to Enter Default Judgment against Cross-Defendant Christopher Asher
(03) Tentative Ruling
Re: Hill v. Brown Case No. 23CECG02923
Hearing Date: August 4, 2026 (Dept. 503)
Motion: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Price Cars SR, LLC’s Motion to Enter Default Judgment against Cross-Defendant Christopher Asher
Tentative Ruling:
To deny Price Cars’ motion to enter default judgment against Christopher Asher, without prejudice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 585.)
Explanation:
First, Price Cars has not dismissed all cross-defendants against whom it does not seek default judgment. Under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1800(a)(7)), a party seeking a default judgment most submit a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought, or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under Code of Civil Procedure section 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each defendant.
Here, the cross-complaint names not only Asher, but also Cory Brown, dba Artanis Automotive, and Poes 1 to 10 as cross-defendants. Brown has not been served with the cross-complaint, nor has Price taken his default. Nor does Price seek a default judgment against Brown or the other named cross-defendants, and it has not dismissed them from the action. Therefore, the court cannot grant a default judgment against Asher until Price either dismisses the Brown and the Poe cross-defendants, or defaults them and seeks a separate judgment against them.
In addition, plaintiff has not adequately proven up all of the damages, interest, and attorney’s fees it seeks. Plaintiff has adequately proven up its actual damages of $35,014.73. However, it also seeks punitive damages of over $105,000, which are triple the actual damages. “In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.” (Civ.
Code, § 3294, subd. (a), italics added.) Here, it does appear that Asher is guilty of fraud in misrepresenting that he was going to pay for the vehicle when he apparently had no intention of doing so. In fact, he pled no contest to criminal fraud charges brought against him in Marin County, apparently based on the same transaction at issue here. (See Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice, Exhibit A.) However, the defendant’s fraud arises out of his breach of the contract for the purchase of the subject vehicle, which means that it falls outside the scope of section 3294.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Punitive damages are only available in actions for breaches of 3
obligations not arising from a contract. (Civil Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) Since the basis of the present case is breach of the contract for sale of the vehicle, punitive damages are not available. Also, even assuming that plaintiff can recover punitive damages here, it has not provided any evidence, authorities, or argument that would support its request for punitive damages of three times the amount of actual damages. The request for over $105,000 in punitive damages based on a breach of contract claim that resulted in actual damages of about $35,000 appears on its face to be excessive, even though defendant made misrepresentations when he entered into the sales contract.
Therefore, the court will not grant the request for over $105,000 in punitive damages. In addition, plaintiff has miscalculated the requested interest. Plaintiff seeks over $21,000 in prejudgment interest based on the contract price of $62,470. However, plaintiff admits that its actual damages are $35,014.73, not $62,470. Therefore, interest should be calculated based on the actual damages of $35,014.73. Based on the amount of actual damages, interest up to February 4, 2026 should be $8,928.29, not over $21,000.
However, the amount of accrued interest will increase as more time passes before entry of the default judgment. Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees is also miscalculated. Plaintiff seeks $5,999 in fees based on Appendix A1 of the Fresno Superior Court Local Rules. However, the requested amount is based on the contract price of $62,470, not plaintiff’s actual damages of $35,014.73. Using the amount of actual damages, the attorney’s fees would be only $3,250.74, not $5,999. Therefore, the court will not award the requested amount of fees.
In summary, the court intends to deny the motion for entry of default judgment without prejudice for multiple reasons, including failure to dismiss all defendants against whom a judgment is not sought, an improper request for excessive punitive damages, improperly calculated interest, and improperly calculated attorney’s fees.
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Tentative Ruling
Issued By: JS on 7/29/2026. (Judge’s initials) (Date)
4