DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
23SMCV01125·la·Civil·Breach of Contract
Hearing todayGRANTED IN PART

Fox Holdings, LLC v. Triller, Inc.

Request for entry of default judgment

Hearing date
Aug 19, 2026
Department
205
Judge
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Monetary amounts referenced

$153,508.78$220,479.56$63,001.60$544$3,425.09$217,054.47

Parties

PlaintiffFox Holdings, LLC
DefendantTriller, Inc.

Ruling

(Beverly Hills Courthouse: Dept. 205) August 19, 2026 DEPARTMENT 205 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

6 | JUDGE/DEPT: Moreton / Beverly Hills, 205 | CASE NAME: Fox Holdings, LLC v. Triller, Inc. CASE NUMBER: 23SMCV01125 | COMP. FILED: March 14, 2023 | PROCEEDINGS: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT MOVING PARTY: Fox Holdings, LLC RESP ONDING PARTY: Triller, Inc.

BACKGROUND

This is a breach of contract case. Plaintiff Fox Holdings, LLC's predecessor in interest (Warner Bros. Digital Services) entered into a written agreement with Defendant Triller, Inc. for advertising services. Plaintiff claims Defendant failed to pay $153,508.78 due under the agreement.

On March 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging a single claim of breach of contract. The Complaint seeks damages of $153,508.78, plus interest at the rate of 10.00% per annum, reasonable attorney's fees, and costs of suit.

Plaintiff substitute served Defendant on June 26, 2023. Defendant answered but its answer was stricken because it was not represented by counsel.

On December 11, 202 5, following Plaintiff's filing of a Request for Entry of Default, th e Clerk of the Court entered default against Defendant. This hearing is on Plaintiff's request for entry of default judgment.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Default judgment against Defendant for a total of $ 220,479.56, which is comprised of: (1) $ 153,508.78 in damages, (2) $ 63,001.60 in interest, (3) $ 5 44 in costs, and (4) $ 3, 425.09 in attorneys' fees.

ANALYSIS

Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 585 sets forth the two options for obtaining a default judgment. First, where the plaintiff ' s complaint¿seeks compensatory damages only, in a sum certain which is readily ascertainable from the allegations of the complaint or statement of damages, the clerk may enter the default judgment for that amount. However, if the relief requested in the complaint is more complicated, consisting of either nonmonetary relief, or monetary relief in amounts which require either an accounting, additional evidence, or the exercise of judgment to ascertain, the plaintiff must request entry of judgment by the court. In such cases, the plaintiff must affirmatively establish his entitlement to the specific judgment requested.¿ (Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 287.)

Section 585 also allows for interest, costs and attorney fees, where otherwise allowed by law. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 585(a).)

Multiple specific documents are required, such as: (1) form CIV 100, (2) a brief summary of the case; (3) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (4) interest computations as necessary; (5) a memorandum of costs and disbursements; (6) a proposed form of judgment; (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under C ode C iv. P roc. Sec. 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (8) exhibits as necessary; and (9) a request for attorneys' fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (CRC Rule 3.1800.)

Here, Plaintiff ha s complied with some but not all the substantive and procedural requirements for a default judgment.

Substantively, Plaintiff declare s via the declaration of its director of credit and collections (Scott Thomson) that there have been damages in the amount of $ 153,508.78. (Thomson Decl. P. 6.) The evidence submitted (the contract, chain of title and invoices) is authenticated by declaration. The costs Plaintiff seeks are stated in a verified memorandum. Plaintiff has submitted the declaration of its counsel as to the calculation of interest. However, the declaration does not explain how the attorneys' fees were calculated and accordingly, the Court excludes this amount ($3,425.09) from the requested judgment.

Procedurally, Plaintiff properly served Defendant more than 30 days prior to requesting entry of default and default judgment, correctly completed JC Form CIV-100 in a manner that would not void or put at issue the entry of default, provided a declaration of non-military status, requested damages in amounts supported by the filings and not in excess of the amount stated in the Complaint, requested dismissal of doe defendants and filed a proposed judgment (JUD-100) . As default has already been entered, default judgment is appropriate here.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff' s Request for Default Judgment is GRANTED IN PART as to Defendant. Judgment in the amount of $ 217,054.47, is awarded in favor of Plaintiff.

Case Number: 25SMCV04807 Hearing Date: August 19, 2026 Dept: 205 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles - West District Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 20 5 JILL SADLER, Plaintiff, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, et al., Defendant s. | Case No.: 2 5 SMCV0 4807 Hearing Date: August 19, 2026 [TENTATIVE] order RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES |

BACKGROUND

This is lemon law case. Plaintiff Jill Sadler bought a new 2024 Hyundai IONIQ. The car suffered from numerous defects which could not be repaired after several attempts. Plaintiff claims the car was unsafe and virtually useless due to the frequency of breakdown s and the amount of time the car was out of service due to repair attempts.

Plaintiff made a demand for repurchase from Defendant Hyundai Motor America. When Defendant failed to repurchase the car, Plaintiff filed suit on September 15, 2025 (less than a year ago), alleging breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty and violation of the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Defendant answered, denying all liability.

The parties have now settled the case for $48,417.87 plus reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The parties could not agree on the proper amount of fees and costs, resulting in this hearing on Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff seeks $ 32,761.70 which consists of (1) $ 26,605 in attorney's fees, (2) a 1.2 multiplier enhancement of $ 5,321, and (3) $8 35. 7 0 in costs.

LEGAL STANDARD

Parties to litigation must generally bear their own attorney's fees, unless they otherwise agree or a statute

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share