PROCEEDINGS: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT 

MOVING PARTY: Siamak Michael Rahimi and Rahimi & Co.  

RESPONDING PARTY: Ross Reghabi 

BACKGROUND 

This is a malicious prosecution case.  Defendant Ross Reghabi sued Plaintiffs Siamak Michael Rahimi and Rahimi & Co. for appearing and producing records (including tax returns) at a deposition in response to a subpoena served on Plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs were the accountants for Reghabi’s clients.  This suit was ultimately stricken as a SLAPP suit.   

On February 3, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Defendant.  The FAC alleges a single claim for malicious prosecution.  The FAC seeks unspecified compensatory damages and punitive damages.     

Plaintiffs filed a proof of service showing Defendant was served by substitute service on February 9, 2017.  Defendant was obligated to respond within 30 days. Defendant did not do so. Plaintiff successfully requested the entry of Defendant’s default, which was entered by the Clerk’s Office on October 12, 2023.  Plaintiffs requested a default judgment on March 1, 2024. Plaintiffs served Defendant by mail with both the Request for Entry of Default and Request for Default Judgment.  Defendant has not appeared. 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

Default judgment against Defendant for a total of $1,939,820.07, which is comprised of: (1) $645,606.69 for damages plus interest at 10% per annum from the entry of the judgment until paid, and $1,293,213.38 in punitive damages.  

ANALYSIS 

Code of Civil Procedure § 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 Code Civ. Proc. § 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, Plaintiffs have not complied with the requirements for a default judgment. Plaintiff seeks $645,606.69 in general damages which is in excess of that demanded in the Complaint.  The Complaint does not specify any amount of general damages.  Section 580, subdivision (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure¿provides that “[t]he relief¿granted to the plaintiff, if there is no answer,¿cannot exceed that demanded in the¿complaint.”  Thus, “in all¿default judgments the demand sets a ceiling on recovery,” and a judgment purporting to grant relief beyond that ceiling is void for being in¿excess of jurisdiction.¿(Greenup v. Rodman¿(1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.)  A complaint that does not specify the amount of damages sought cannot “support a default judgment in any amount.”  (Stein v. York (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 320, 327.)  “Where no specific amount of damages is demanded, there is no adequate notice to the defendant — and a default judgment entered under those conditions is void.”¿(Id.)  

Plaintiffs also seek punitive damages.  To obtain punitive damages, Plaintiffs were required to serve a statement of damages.  The purpose of the¿statement of damages is to notify a defendant of the amount of damages sought where the law prevents the plaintiff from including a specific amount in the complaint such as here.  (Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez¿(2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 398 (under¿Civ. Code § 3295, subd. (e), a complaint may not state the amount of punitive damages sought).)  There is no evidence here that Plaintiffs served a statement of damages on Defendant at any time, much less before the entry of default on October 12, 2023.   

Plaintiffs also failed to complete item 2 of the CIV 100 form.  Use of CIV 100, item 2 is mandatory.  (CRC 3.1800(a).)   

CONCLUSION AND ORDER  

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Siamak Michael Rahimi and Rahimi & Co.’s Request for Default Judgment is DENIED as to Defendant Ross Reghabi.