| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
request for default judgment
CASE NUMBER: 24STCV13085 CASE NAME: McKesson Corp. Retail? West v. Century Beverly Hills Pharmacy Inc., et al.
SUMMARY: The hearing is continued to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to correct the issues noted below. request for default judgment I.
Legal Standard
Code of Civil Procedure section 585 permits entry of a judgment after a Defendant has failed to timely answer after being properly served.¿ A party seeking judgment on the default by the Court must file a Request for Court Judgment, and: (1) a brief summary of the case; (2) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3) interest computations as necessary; (4) a memorandum of costs and disbursements; (5) a proposed form of judgment; (6) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought; (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under Code Civ. Proc. Section 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. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800.)¿ II.
Discussion
On May 24, 2025, McKesson Corp Retail-West (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Century Beverly Hills Pharmacy Inc. (“Century”); Joseph Amkin aka Joseph S Amin (“Joseph) (collectively “Defendants”) and Does 1 to 20. The Complaint alleges two causes of action for Breach of Contract and Common Counts and sought $107,821.38 in damages plus 10% interest from May 1, 2024 as well as attorney fees according to proof.
A. Plaintiff’s Declaration
Plaintiff’s custodian of records states that Exhibit A is an agreement between Plaintiff and Defendants, wherein Defendants agreed to accept medical related supplies in exchange for payment. (Bergera Decl., ¶¶ 1-5; Ex. A.) Exhibit B of the Declaration is a “true and correct copy of the Invoice/Statement of Account reflecting an outstanding balance totaling $107,821.38 that DEFENDANT owes the PLAINTIFF.” (Id. ¶ 5, Ex. B.) Plaintiff asserts that to date no payment has been made. (Ibid.)
B. Prejudgment Interest
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?”
Plaintiff asserts that pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 3289, Plaintiff is due 10 percent interest from the date of default, May 1, 2024. (Hettena Decl., ¶¶ 4, 8.) The interest computation is as follows: · $107,821.38 x 10% ÷ 365 = $29.54 in accrual of interest per day · 567 days between May 1, 2024 and November 19, 2025 · $29.54 x 567 = $16,749.18 Therefore, interest is $16,749.18, which is slightly less than the $16,749.24 claimed by Plaintiff. (Hettena Decl., ¶ 8.)
C. Request for Attorney Fees
Plaintiff asserts they are entitled to attorney fees pursuant to Civil Code Section 1717(a). However, neither the Complaint nor a declaration identifies the relevant provision in Exhibit A that provides for attorney fees. For section 1717(a) to apply, the contract must “specifically provide[] that attorney’s fees and costs’ be awarded to the prevailing party. (Civ. Code, § 1717(a).) Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to show they are entitled to attorney fees under the contract.
D. Request for Costs
The latest CIV-100 seeking default judgment was filed on January 16, 2026. In that CIV-100 form, for the judgment to be entered Plaintiff requests $1,025.76 in costs, but in the memorandum of costs Plaintiff seeks $1,460.76 in costs. The JUD-100 form also seeks $1,460.76 in costs. Plaintiff’s counsel also submitted a declaration asserting that costs total $1,460.76. (Hettena Decl., ¶¶ 4, 5.) There is currently a discrepancy between CIV-100?s requests a judgment in the sum of $131,257.44 and JUD-100 which seeks a judgment in the sum of $131,692.44. The Court continues the hearing to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to correct the deficiencies noted above.
Conclusion
The hearing is continued to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to correct the issues noted above.
Date: _______________________________ William E. Weinberger Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court Home -->)" -->