MW Manufacturers, Inc. v. DS Glass & Windows, Inc. et al.

(35) Tentative Ruling

Re: MW Manufacturers, Inc. v. DS Glass & Windows, Inc. et al. Superior Court Case No. 24CECG4334

Hearing Date: August 27, 2026 (Dept. 503)

Motion: By Plaintiff for Entry of Default Judgment

Tentative Ruling:

Plaintiff MW Manufacturers, Inc. and its counsel of record are directed to personally appear.

Explanation:

Plaintiff MW Manufacturers, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) submits on that which the court has already rejected twice.

On this, the third occasion, Plaintiff seeks entry of default judgment. On this, the third occasion, Plaintiff once again submits on the declaration of Travis Newkirk, dated February 4, 2025. On this, the third occasion, Newkirk’s declaration fails to explain the naked ledger submitted, at Exhibit 2. Nothing in the application addresses the court’s prior denial orders, which directed Plaintiff to explain the entry dated March 13, 2024 as “Interest Expense” for $72,239.22.

As the prior denial orders expressly enumerated, the Complaint, which was conceded by default, alleged that a breach occurred on December 3, 2022. As the prior denial orders expressly enumerated, the ledger submitted in support of the application appears to begin with due dates of December 3, 2022. Thus, as the court previously concluded, a line-item indicating “Interest Expense” is seeking prejudgment interest as a function of Plaintiff’s principal damages, from the date of breach to, as this ledger concludes, March 13, 2024.

An original balance owed, prior to the imposition of interest would seem to be at $265,840.41. Interest charged against the gross amount of $72,239.22 would therefore seem to calculate to a rate of 27.17 percent. This rate is grossly above the contract rate of 1.5 percent per month, 18 percent per annum. Thus, the court previously directed Plaintiff to explain the imposition of this interest expense, which is also a required filing where interest is sought. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1800(a)(3).)

Counsel’s declaration of disinterest in interest recovery on behalf of his client is in actual conflict with the amount sought in judgment.

For the above reasons, the court again intends to deny the application for default judgment, which is not materially changed from the prior two attempts. Plaintiff and its counsel of record are directed to appear and explain why sanctions should not be imposed.

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 4

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 8/26/2026. (Judge’s initials) (Date)

5