Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 20STCV08594, Date: 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV08594 Hearing Date: May 17, 2023 Dept: 68
THIS IS A COPY OF THE COURT'S APRIL 7, 2023 ORDER.
I think we have a
problem.
The Plaintiffs’
Statement of Damages pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedure § 425.11 was filed (but not served on any Defendant) on
March 30, 2023, along with the various default judgment papers.
The Procedural
History and Defaults
This action was filed
on March 2, 2020. The Complaint alleges
a number of causes of action, all based on the claimed uninhabitability of the
premises rented to the Plaintiffs by the Defendants. Consistent with C.C.P. § 425.10(b) Plaintiffs did not allege in the Complaint any
specific amount of damages. Defendants
Genaro Moreno, Guillermo Gonzalez and Nereyda Gonzalez all filed their
respective Answers on May 4, 2020, having been served the Complaint in March
2020.
The Court set a Case
Management Conference for June 9, 2020.
On April 23, 2020 the Court ordered the Case Management Conference
continued to August 10, 2020. Plaintiff
was ordered to give notice to all parties.
(The Court does not see any notice filed with the Court giving notice to
Defendants of the new Case Management Conference date.) Defendant Guillermo Gonzalez filed a Case
Management Statement on May 4, 2020 indicating the date of the Case Management Conference
as June 9, 2020, the original date. It
indicates that it was also filed on behalf of Defendant Nereyda Gonzalez. Plaintiffs filed their Case Management
Statement on July 22, 2020.
Only Plaintiffs’
counsel appeared at the August 10, 2020 Case Management Conference. The Court issued an order to show cause at
that hearing.
“Order
to Show Cause Re: Defendants Failure To Appear Up To And Including Potential
Terminating Sanctions is scheduled for 10/09/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 68
at Stanley Mosk Courthouse.”
Plaintiff was ordered
to give notice to all parties. On August
11, 2020 Plaintiff’s filed their Notice of Ruling which included the
information regarding the Order to Show Cause.
It shows served by mail on the Defendants.
On October 9, 2020,
at the Case Management Conference, including the Order to Show Cause hearing
regarding the Defendants’ failure to appear, the Court ordered the Answers of
Defendants Genaro Moreno, Guillermo Gonzalez and Nereyda Gonzalez stricken.
The Default of
Defendants Genaro Moreno, Guillermo Gonzalez and Nereyda Gonzalez were entered
on November 12, 2021.
Defaults and
Statements of Damages
“It
is well settled that a plaintiff may not take a default against a defendant
without giving the defendant actual notice of the amount of damages claimed. (Schwab v. Rondel Homes, Inc. (1991) 53
Cal.3d 428, 430, 280 Cal.Rptr. 83, 808 P.2d 226.) In general, this notice is found in the
complaint or cross-complaint. (§ 425.10,
subd. (a).) However, where, as here, an
action is brought to recover damages for personal injury, the amount of damages
claimed may not be stated in the complaint. (§ 425.10, subd. (b).) Instead, the defendant “may at any time request
a statement setting forth the nature and amount of damages being sought.” (§ 425.11, subd. (b).) If the defendant does not make such a
request, “the plaintiff shall serve the statement on the defendant before a
default may be taken.” (§ 425.11,
subd. (c).) Thus, “[n]ot only is a
default judgment for an amount greater than that specifically demanded void,
but when a statement of damages is required but not served, the underlying
entry of default is invalid also and is subject to set-aside.” (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196
Cal.App.4th 1495, 1521, 127 Cal.Rptr.3d 542.)
For
purposes of this rule, a default taken after the answer to a complaint is
stricken as a discovery sanction is treated the same way as a default taken
after the defendant fails to answer the complaint. (Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d
822, 824–829, 231 Cal.Rptr. 220, 726 P.2d 1295 (Greenup).)” Department of Fair Employment &
Housing v. Ottovich (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 706, 712 [173 Cal.Rptr.3d 881,
885-886].
The purpose of this rule
requiring that the statement of damages be provided to the defendants “before a
default may be taken” (C.C.P. §
425.11(c)) is to give the defendant one last clear chance to respond to the
allegations of the complaint by providing the defendant with actual notice of the
exact potential liability. “Section
425.11 was designed to give defendants “one last clear chance” to respond to
allegations of complaints by providing them with “actual” notice of their exact
potential liability. (Id., pp.
928–929, 206 Cal.Rptr. 924.)” Connelly
v. Castillo (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1583, 1588 [236 Cal.Rptr. 112, 115].
Therefore, the Court
shall not entertain the default judgment request at this time. Plaintiff must cure this problem first.
[It appears that
Plaintiffs must be served their the Statement of Damages on each Defendant,
which includes a notice that the defendant may file an answer or other
responsive pleading to the Complaint within 30 days after service of the
Statement of Damages. The Court believes
that it may be appropriate to serve a copy of the Complaint so that the
Defendants are aware of the allegations, since the original service was in
March 2020, more than 3 years ago.
However the Court leaves it entirely to the Plaintiffs how to address
this issue.]
If the Plaintiff’s
believe that the Court is in error and that they are entitled to have the Court
enter default judgment on their present filings, they may address that issue at
the May 17, 2023 hearing. They should
file a brief with the Court detailing their position on this issue no later
than May 10, 2023.
ORDER
1.
The
Request or Entry of Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.
2.
The
Clerk of the Court shall give notice of the Order to Plaintiffs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 7, 2023 _______________________________
Douglas
W. Stern
Judge of the Superior Court