Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case 20STCV03156 2022-12-23 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.    If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.

            Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.

        If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.

Case Name: Escalante v. Canizales

Hearing Date: December 23, 2022

Case No. 20STCV03156

Trial/OSC Date: None set

Having considered all documents submitted in support of an application for default judgment, the Court rules as follows.

On January 24, 2020, Plaintiff Ignacio Escalante (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Daniel Canizales (“Defendant”). The complaint alleges assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff alleges Defendant shot him through the back of his head while they were passengers in a car early in the morning on June 10, 2019. There is an ongoing criminal case, Case No.

On December 8, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on Plaintiff’s request for default judgment to allow Plaintiff to submit form CIV-100.

On December 9, 2022, Defendant filed default judgment packet, including a form CIV-100, a proposed judgment, a statement of the case, a declaration by Plaintiff’s counsel, and a declaration by Plaintiff.

Plaintiff asks the Court to enter a default judgment against Defendants and award Plaintiff $4,534,275.79.

Plaintiff requests $1,795,000 in special damages, $2,000,000 in general damages, $716,238.64 in interest, $287.15 in costs, and $22,750 in attorney fees for a total of $4,534,275.79. Plaintiff’s request is denied. The Court finds the application filed on December 9, 2022 does not provide sufficient evidence of medical or special damages.

Proof of personal service of the summons and complaint was filed on April 29, 2021. The POS reflects service on April 23, 2021. Default was entered on July 7, 2022. Defendant filed an answer on September 13, 2022, more than two months after default was entered. Plaintiff filed a request for court judgment using Form CIV-100. Item number 2 is filled out. Item 8 declaration of nonmilitary status is filled out.

Plaintiff properly put Defendant on notice of his potential liability. Plaintiff did not state an amount of damages in the complaint. Instead, Plaintiff’s complaint sought general, special, punitive and exemplary damages “in a sum according to proof, at the time of trial.” Plaintiff served a statement of damages on Defendant on June 14, 2022 seeking $3,795,000. (July 7, 2022 Request for Entry of Default, Exh. A). Proof of service of the statement of damages was filed along with a request for entry of default on July 7, 2022.

However, Plaintiff did not provide adequate evidence of damages. Plaintiff does not attach evidence of medical bills or payments. Instead, Plaintiff simply attaches a declaration detailing the costs Plaintiff expended on medical bills. Additionally, Plaintiff does not provide sufficient evidence to support his claim for special damages. “Special damages” means out-of-pocket losses that can be documented (e.g., medical and related expenses, loss of income, costs of services). Beeman v. Burling (1990) 216 CA3d 1586, 1599. Plaintiff does not provide adequate evidence to support his claim for lost wages, such as wage statements. Plaintiff simply states that he worked for Coasters at the time of the alleged attack and made $14 per hour. (Declaration of Ignatio Escalante, para. 2). Accordingly, Plaintiff does not provide adequate evidence of damages.

The application for default judgment filed on December 8, 2022 against Defendant is therefore DENIED.