Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 23STCV09772, Date: 2024-02-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV09772    Hearing Date: February 13, 2024    Dept: 52

Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Default Judgment

Plaintiff Antonio Alexander Acosta Juarez requests court judgment by default against defendants DB & JB Construction Inc dba DB Construction and Douglas E. Bracamonte.  Plaintiff’s application for default judgment has five defects.

1. Judgment Exceeds Amount Demanded by Complaint

Plaintiff requests judgment for relief exceeding the amount demanded in the complaint.  “A default judgment greater than the amount specifically demanded in the complaint is void as beyond the court’s jurisdiction.”  (Airs Aromatics, LLC v. CBL Data Recovery Technologies, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 1013, 1018.)  “Where no amount of damages is demanded any amount awarded is by definition greater than the amount demanded.”  (Falahati v. Kondo (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 823, 830–831.)

Plaintiff requests a judgment of $216,766.50 including $200,000 in damages.  The first amended complaint does not demand or allege any specific amount of damages.  It prays “For damages according to proof”, “For general unpaid wages”, “For general damages”, and “For other special damages.”  (FAC, p. 23.)  The judgment plaintiff requests thus exceeds the amount demanded.  The court cannot grant it.

To recover damages, plaintiff must file a second amended complaint.  Filing an amended complaint vacates defendants’ defaults.  After a plaintiff “file[s] an amended complaint praying for a different amount of damages and/or other appropriate relief… she must serve her amended complaint on defendants, who will be entitled to file a new answer; all issues will then be at large, including liability.”  (Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 830; accord Airs Aromatics, LLC v. CBL Data Recovery Technologies, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 1013, 1025 [filing amended complaint vacates default].)  The amended complaint must be served in the manner of a summons.  (Engebretson & Co. v. Harrison (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 436, 444.)

2. Insufficient Factual Allegations Against Douglas E. Bracamonte

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint does not allege sufficient facts to constitute its causes of action against Douglas E. Bracamonte.  “Under the ‘well pleaded’ complaint rule, it is error to enter a default judgment on a complaint that fails to state a cause of action against the defaulting defendant.”  (Ferraro v. Camarlinghi (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 509, 539.)  Where “the liability of the individual defendants” relies “upon disregard of the corporate entity by application of the alter ego doctrine,” a complaint’s “bare conclusory allegation[s]” are insufficient for a default judgment against the individuals.  (Vasey v. California Dance Co. (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 742, 748-749.) 

The first amended complaint alleges six causes of action for violations of the Labor Code and two causes of action for violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act.  It alleges, “Plaintiff was employed by Defendants DB & JB Construction Inc.”  (FAC, ¶ 1.)  It alleges Bracamonte was “the owner” of the business.  (¶ 18.)  It does not allege Bracamonte employed plaintiff.  It alleges no basis for finding Bracamonte vicariously liable for the conduct of plaintiff’s employer.  It does not include even conclusory allegations that would make Bracamonte liable as an individual for violating the Labor Code or Fair Employment and Housing Act. 

3. Interest

            Plaintiff seeks $4,500 in prejudgment interest.  An application for default judgment must include “[i]nterest computations as necessary.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a)(3).)  Plaintiff’s papers do not explain the basis or the computations supporting $4,500 in prejudgment interest. 

Moreover, prejudgment interest is generally available when the amount of damages is certain as of a particular day.  (Civ. Code § 3287(a) [“A person who is entitled to recover damages certain, or capable of being made certain by calculation, and the right to recover which is vested in the person upon a particular day, is entitled also to recover interest thereon from that day”].)  Plaintiff does not allege damages that were certain or capable of being made certain by calculation and vested on a particular day. 

4. Declaration of Non-Military Status

            Plaintiff did not include a sworn declaration of defendants’ nonmilitary status.  An application for default judgment must include “[a] declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant against whom judgment is sought.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a)(5); see Form CIV-100, § 8.)

5. Doe Defendants

            Finally, plaintiff did not request dismissal of defendants Does 1-10.  An application for default judgment must include “[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 judgment.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a)(7).)  Plaintiff does not seek default judgment against the Doe defendants and therefore must dismiss them.

Disposition

Plaintiff’s request for court judgment by default is denied.  Under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(a)(1), the court hereby grants plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint to demand a specific amount of damages.