Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 24STCV13026, Date: 2025-03-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV13026    Hearing Date: March 12, 2025    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

The Court denies Plaintiff’s default judgment packet. 

The Court sets a hearing on an order to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed and/or Plaintiff’s counsel sanctioned $250 for failing to enter default judgment (California Rule of Court, rule 3.110(h)) on May 23, 2025, at 8:30 AM in Department 71 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse for the following reasons:

1.     No CIV-100 requesting Court Judgment. No completed cost memorandum or declaration of non-military status.

2.     No DOE Dismissal.

3.     Complaint seeks punitive damages and Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he personally served the requisite statement of damages or notice of punitive damages. (C.C.P. §§425.11(c), 425.115.) Plaintiff has not demonstrated evidence of the defendants’ wealth; an award of punitive damages requires evidence as to the defendant’s wealth.  (Devlin v. Kearny Mesa AMC (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 381, 390; Adams v. Murakami (1991) 54 Cal.3d 105, 118.)

4.     The request for court judgment does not properly seek an amount that is equal to or less than the amount sought in the complaint or C.C.P. §425.11 statement of damages.  (See, e.g., Falahati v. Kondo (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 823, 830-831 [stating court acts in excess of its jurisdiction and the resulting default judgment is void if the court awards default judgment in an amount greater than that demanded in the complaint, including if the complaint does not specify the amount demanded].)

5.     Plaintiffs has not shown liability as to each defendant and that the recovery is not duplicative.