PROCEEDINGS: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT 

MOVING PARTY: Cynthia Padilla  

RESPONDING PARTY: La Condesa, Emme Group, Inc.  

BACKGROUND 

This is a slip and fall case.  Plaintiff Cynthia Padilla was walking down the stairs inside Defendants La Condesa and Emme Group Inc.’s business when she slipped, causing her to fall and sustain physical injuries.  Plaintiff sustained a nondisplaced fracture to her right ankle along with swelling of her right knee.  Plaintiff received treatment from several medical providers for her injuries. 

Plaintiff alleges Defendants failed to adequately inspect, maintain and/or make their premises reasonably safe and that Defendants knew or should have known of the dangerous condition created by the slippery substance on the stairs prior to Plaintiff’s fall but failed to take any action to repair or otherwise remedy the dangerous condition.     

On March 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants.  The Complaint alleges two claims for negligence and premises liability.  The Statement of Damages seeks $750,000 in general damages and $550,000 in special damages.   

Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing Defendant La Condesa was served by substitute service on April 18, 2023 and Defendant Emme Group Inc. on September 8, 2023.  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 November 13, 2023.  Plaintiff requested a default judgment on November 21, 2023.  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 $129,931.03, which is comprised of: (1) $127,198, for damages, (2) $1,229.56, for interest, and (3) $1,503.47 for costs.  

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 properly complied with the requirements for a default judgment. Plaintiff’s proofs of service indicate the complaint was served by substitute service, but there is no declaration of reasonable diligence attached to the proof of service.  (See 1 Cal. Affirmative Def. § 2:14 (2d ed.)¿(“The requirement that the plaintiff¿attempt personal service with reasonable diligence before use of¿substituted service is mandatory . . .¿[if] the requirement is not satisfied, the¿substituted service will be¿ineffective.”).)  To serve a complaint by¿substitute service, one¿must first attempt personal service.¿ (Espindola v. Nunez (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1389, 1392 (two or three attempts at personal service will satisfy the requirement of reasonable diligence).)   

“[C]ompliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction. Thus, a default judgment entered against a Defendant who was not served with a summons in the manner prescribed by statute is void.”  (Ellard v. Conway¿(2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 540, 544 (citations and internal quotations omitted).) 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER  

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Cynthia Padilla’s Request for Default Judgment is DENIED.