PROCEEDINGS: REQUEST FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT  

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Leif L. Rogers, M.D. 

RESP. PARTY: Defendants Electric Cryotherapy, Inc., Bryan Dyer and Amber Nichole Frye 

BACKGROUND 

This case arises from a dispute over a defective cryotherapy unit sold by Defendant Electric Cryotherapy Inc. (“ECC”) to Plaintiff Leif L. Rogers, M.D.  Defendant Bryan Dyer is the CEO of ECC, and Defendant Amber Nichole Frye is the CFO of ECC.  Plaintiff treats professional athletes and other patients with specific cryotherapy needs.  Plaintiff agreed to purchase two cryo units from ECC, only one of which was ever delivered and installed.  The unit that was installed never functioned properly.  ECC attempted to repair the unit without any success, and the cryo unit eventually stopped working altogether.      

Plaintiff filed a complaint with two causes of action for (1) breach of contract, and (2) breach of warranty.  The Complaint sought the following damages: (1) $200,000 payment for one cryo unit, (2) the costs of removal of the cryo unit including damage to the premises as an inevitable result of dismantling and removing the unit, estimated at $5,000 to $10,000, (3) the costs of installing a new floor estimated at $10,000, as a result of leakage from the faulty cryo unit, (4) the costs of damage to the medical office’s air conditioning units as a result of ECC’s faulty repairs, estimated at $10,000, and (5) lost income that the cryo units would have generated if they functioned properly, estimated at $50,000.   

Plaintiff filed proofs of service showing ECC and Frye were personally served with the Complaint on June 10, 2022.  Plaintiff also filed a proof of service showing Dyer was served by substituted service on July 8, 2022.  Defendants were obligated to respond within 30 days. Defendants did not do so. Plaintiff successfully requested the entry of Defendants’ default, which was entered by the Clerk’s Office on July 19, 2022 (for ECC and Frye) and on September 26, 2022 (for Dyer).  Plaintiff then requested a default judgment on October 14, 2022.  Plaintiff served Defendants by mail with both the Request for Entry of Default and Request for Default Judgment.  Defendants have not appeared. 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

Default judgment against Defendants for a total of $662,050.35, which is comprised of: (1) $582,000, for damages, (2) $70,679.10, for interest at the statutory rate of 10% per annum, (3) $584, for costs, and (4) $8,787.25 for attorneys’ fees.  The $582,000 in damages consists of (1) $200,000 for purchase of the cryo unit, (2) costs to remove the cryo unit, estimated at $25,000, (3) damage to the facility’s air conditioning unit as a result of ECC’s repair efforts, estimated at $10,000, (4) costs to repair the newly installed floors estimated at $15,000, and (5) lost profits of $332,000.     

ANALYSIS 

Code of Civil Procedure section 585 sets forth the two options for obtaining a default judgment.  First, where the plaintiff's complaint¿seeks compensatory damages only, in a sum certain which is readily ascertainable from the allegations of the complaint or statement of damages, the clerk may enter the default judgment for that amount.  However, if the relief requested in the complaint is more complicated, consisting of either nonmonetary relief, or monetary relief in amounts which require either an accounting, additional evidence, or the exercise of judgment to ascertain, the plaintiff must request entry of judgment by the court.  In such cases, the plaintiff must affirmatively establish his entitlement to the specific judgment requested.¿ (Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 287.) Section 585 also allows for interest, costs and attorney fees, where otherwise allowed by law. (Code of Civ. Proc.  585(a).) 

Multiple specific documents are required, such as: (1) form CIV 100, (2) a brief summary of the case; (3) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (4) interest computations as necessary; (5) a memorandum of costs and disbursements; (6) a proposed form of judgment; (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under CCP § 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (8) exhibits as necessary; and (9) a request for attorneys’ fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties.  (CRC Rule 3.1800.)  

Here, Plaintiff has not met the requirements for a default judgment.  Plaintiff is seeking damages ($662,050.35) well in excess of that demanded in the Complaint ($280,000).  Code Civ. Proc. § 580 provides that “the relief granted to the plaintiff, if there is no answer, cannot exceed that demanded in the complaint.”  A default judgment greater than the amount specifically demanded in the complaint is void as beyond the court’s jurisdiction. (Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 826; see also Finney v. Gomez (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 527, 534 [“[T]he courts have reaffirmed the language of section 580 is mandatory. Therefore, in all default judgments the demand sets a ceiling on recovery.”).)    

CONCLUSION AND ORDER  

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Leif L. Rogers, M.D.’s Request for Default Judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.