Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV47984, Date: 2023-01-31 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV47984 Hearing Date: January 31, 2023 Dept: 28
Plaintiff here submits a request for entry of default judgment. Default was entered on July 8, 2022. In his request for entry of default, Plaintiff claimed Special Damages of $15,849.46 and General Damages of $1,000,000. Nonetheless, Plaintiff’s Statement of Damages, filed May 19, 2022, claimed only Special Damages “Accord to Proof” and General Damages for Emotional Distress “Accord to Proof,” and “General Damages for Pain, Suffering, and Inconvenience” of $1,000,000.
Plaintiff seeks the Court to enter Judgment. But Plaintiff’s JUD-100 form is blank as to the amount of damages being sought (Item 6(a)), and fails to indicate in whose favor the judgment is to be entered and against whom (Item 5(a)). In his request for entry of judgment, Plaintiff now claims $21,849.46 in special damages and $1,000,000 in general damages. The Court denied the request for entry of default judgment on the basis of the lack of special damages in the Statement of Damages and the incompleteness of the JUD-100.
At the January 30, 2023 hearing on an Order to Show Cause why the Court should not dismiss this matter for Plaintiff’s failure to have had judgment entered, Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the Court should simply issue a judgment for up to $1,000,000 because Plaintiff’s Statement of Damages put Defendant on notice of at least that exposure. The Court reviewed the matter and now, again, denies Plaintiff’s request for entry of damages.
A defendant is entitled to know the amounts of any special and general damages requested. In Plotitsa v. Superior Court, the Court of Appeal issued a writ ordering the trial court to grant a previously denied motion for relief from default. The Court of Appeal noted that the plaintiff had served a Statement of Damages where in the plaintiff stated only the total amount of damages sought, without a breakdown as between special and general damages. The Court noted that although Code of Civil Procedure sections 425.10 and 425.11 are silent as to the purpose of requiring a statement of both special and general damages sought, such information aids a defendant in evaluating the validity of plaintiff's damage claims with regard to their provability. The plaintiff’s failure to identify both his special and his general damages claims rendered his default judgment untenable. (Plotitsa v. Superior Court (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 755, 761-762.)
Citing Potitsa, the Court of Appeal in Jones v. Interstate Recovery Serv. upheld a trial court’s setting aside a default judgment because the plaintiff’s complaint had not described the amount of special damages being sought. The Court held that Code of Civil Procedure section 425.11 requires a statement of both special and general damages sought because such information aids a defendant in evaluating the validity of plaintiff's damage claims with regard to their provability. In Jones, plaintiffs requested a specific amount of general damages as to each cause of action, but did not identify the potential special damages being sought. Rather, the complaint alleged the specials would be established and proved at a later date. The Jones Court held that, given the correlative relationship between the amount of general damages awarded and the special damages proved, a defendant is entitled to a statement of specials prior to the entry of default. “A defendant might base a decision to defend on the amount of specials. In this instance the defendant had no knowledge of the alleged special damages and therefore could not make an informed decision concerning plaintiffs' claims. Section 425.11 was designed to provide defendants with such information.” (Jones v. Interstate Recovery Serv. (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 925, 929.)
In light of these decisions, this Court finds that Plaintiff must re-serve a statement of damages describing the amount of special damages he seeks. Only then can default and default judgment be entered.
In addition, any future submitted JUD-100 must identify against whom the judgment is being sought and on behalf of who, and specify the amount being sought.
The Court sets a hearing on hearing on an Order to Show Cause why the Court should not dismiss this matter for Plaintiff’s failure to have default judgment entered on May 26, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 28.
Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this outcome.