Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 23PSCV01429, Date: 2024-08-14 Tentative Ruling
The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.
Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.
The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.
Case Number: 23PSCV01429 Hearing Date: August 14, 2024 Dept: O
Tentative Ruling
Plaintiff’s
Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice for the
three (3) reasons (see infra).
Background
This case
arises from a motor vehicle accident that happened on 5/16/2022.
On May 11,
2023, Plaintiff William Sieber filed suit for (1) General Negligence and (2)
Motor Vehicle against Defendant Eugenio Montelongo Fraire.
On May 25,
2023, Plaintiff filed a proof of service (POS) indicating that Defendant was
served with the summons, complaint, and statement of damages, amongst other
documents, via substituted service on 5/24/23.
On July 6,
2023, default was entered against Defendant.
On May 15,
2024, the court held a hearing re: OSC re: Default Judgment and continued the
hearing as Plaintiff failed to file a default judgment application.
On July 9,
Plaintiff filed the instant application for entry of default judgment.
Discussion
Plaintiff
seeks entry of default judgment against Defendant in the total amount of
$49,831.93, which includes $40,552.05 in damages, $8,710.36 in prejudgment
interest, and $569.52 in court costs. According to Plaintiff's
declaration, his injuries include injury to his head, neck, mid back,
lower back. He also had headaches and insomnia. (Sieber Decl., p. 1.) As a
result, his damages include the following: property damage of $1,121.30;
Medical Bills of $10,465.00; and Pain and Suffering of $28,965.75.
The court
finds three defects with the application.
1. Dismissal of Doe Defendants
Though a
minor defect, per CCP section 585, Doe Defendants must be dismissed. Here, Doe
Defendants 1 to 50 have not been dismissed.
2. Prove-Up General Damages
The court determines
that Plaintiff has not adequately proved up his general
damages. “General damages”
includes pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of privacy and other
“subjective” detriment that is not directly quantifiable. (Beeman v. Burling (1990) 216 Cal.App.3d 1586, 1599.) The
only person whose pain and suffering is relevant in calculating a general
damage award is the plaintiff... How others would feel if placed in the
plaintiff's position is irrelevant… No amount of expert testimony on the value
of life could possibly help a jury decide that difficult question. (Loth v.
Truck-A-Way Corp. (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 757, 764-64.) Here, however, Plaintiff has not
explained how a seemingly minor accident (based upon the minor property damage)
caused near $30,000 of damages in pain and suffering.
3. Statement of Damages
Pursuant to section 425.11, in an to recover damages for personal injury or
wrongful death, the plaintiff may not state the amount demanded in the complaint
but must serve on the defendant a statement setting forth the nature and amount
of damages (i.e., the statement of damages).
(§§ 425.10, subd. (b), 425.11, subds. (b), (c). Consequently, the court must limit its default judgment to the amount
demanded in the statement of damages.
(§§ 580, subd. (a), 585, subd. (b); see also Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42
Cal.3d 822, 824 [“In all default judgments the
demand sets a ceiling on recovery.”].) A statement of
plaintiff's “total demand,” without a breakdown between general and
special damages, is insufficient. (Plotitsa v. Sup.Ct. (Kadri) (1983)
140 Cal.App.3d 755, 761-762.) By its terms, CCP § 425.11(d) only requires the
plaintiff to serve a statement of damages on the defendant before entry
of default; it does not require the plaintiff
to file the statement with the court. Notwithstanding,
the statement must be filed with the
request to enter default when it is the notice of
special and general damages claimed. (See Cal
Rules of Ct 3.250(a)(20).)
Here, while the statement of damages
was served with the complaint, it has not been submitted as evidence for the court to ensure
that the damages sought in default judgment comports with that stated in the
statement of damages.
Conclusion
Based on the
foregoing three defects, the default judgment is denied without prejudice.