Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 24PSCV00068, Date: 2024-09-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV00068    Hearing Date: September 24, 2024    Dept: O

Tenative Ruling

Plaintiff’s Application for Entry of Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice for (i) lack of evidence and (ii) failure to comply with other default judgment application requirements.

Background

This case arises from a motor vehicle accident that happened on 1/14/2022.

On January 8, 2024, Plaintiffs SAIDA DIAZ SEVILLA, SAIDA GARCIA DIAZ filed suit against Defendant EDGAR GUTIERREZ VELAZQUEZ (and Doe Defendants).[1]

On August 14, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a statement of damages.

On August 19, 2024, default was entered against Defendant. That same day, Plaintiffs filed a

‘Notice Of E-Filed Declaration In Support Default Judgment Declaration Of Azin Barzin Rewarding Diligent Service On Defendant Edgar Gutierrez Velasquez – Case 24pscv00068.’

Discussion

The application is denied for a variety of reasons.

First, the court directs Plaintiffs to California Rules of Court Rule 3.1800 for default judgment requirements; Plaintiffs have not complied with many.

Second, Plaintiffs have not submitted a default judgment request on a CIV-100 form such that is unknoen how much Plaintiffs seek in damages.

Third, as the court in Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267 carefully articulated, “[t]he court must [] compare the properly pled damages for each defaulting party with the evidence offered in the prove-up.” (Id. at pp. 272.) Here, no evidence has been submitted. (Based off the statement of damages, it appears Plaintiffs seek well over one million dollars.)