Eshagian v. Cepeda (2025)

Citation: Eshagian v. Cepeda (2025)
Parent Document: Eshagian v. Cepeda (2025)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2025-06-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10617811/eshagian-v-cepeda/ ↗

Full Text

1,126 chars

16
judgment under section 663 is not available to a defaulted
tenant. 7
       A defaulted defendant alternatively may generally file a
motion under section 657, subdivision (7), for a new trial
(treating the default prove-up hearing as the “trial”) “on the
ground that the trial court committed errors in law when
awarding and calculating damages.” (Siry, supra, 13 Cal.5th at
pp. 345-345, 367.) Section 657, subdivision (7), may be used to
challenge the sufficiency of the complaint (and an incorporated
three-day notice) 8 because even where a default has been
entered, the “‘plaintiff still bears the burden of proving its
entitlement to damages to the court.’” (Siry, at p. 343.) Thus, the
court “remains obligated to ensure that a plaintiff has established
entitlement to damages under “(1) the relevant statute, contract,
or legal doctrine, and (2) the well-[pleaded] allegations in its
operative complaint.” (Ibid.) However, where the court enters
only a possession-only judgment, the defaulted tenant cannot
challenge the judgment under section 657 because the judgment
does not resolve the landlord’s damages claim.

Other Sections in This Document (49)

Full Text