Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 24STCV18542, Date: 2025-04-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV18542     Hearing Date: April 14, 2025    Dept: 9

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Latrece Bernice Walker v Oshkosh Aerotech LLC, et al,

24STCV18542

ORDER

Plaintiff’s Counsel has failed to file proof of service of the Summons and Complaint as to all named defendants, including EFRAIN RIVAS.

Plaintiff’s Counsel filed a declaration on 4/7/25 setting forth efforts to serve EFRAIN RIVAS, but those efforts have been unsuccessful.

In the April 7, 2025 Joint Status Report, Defendant states that Plaintiff has agreed to dismiss EFRAIN RIVAS.  However, the docket does not reflect the filing or service of any request to dismiss EFRAIN RIVAS.  Nor has Plaintiff filed any declaration compliant with California Rules of Court Rule 3.770 seeking the dismissal of EFRAIN RIVAS.

No later than May 30, 2025, Plaintiff’s Counsel must file either proof of service of the Summons and Complaint on EFRAIN RIVAS or a declaration explaining the failure to file proofs of service of the summons and complaint on EFRAIN RIVAS, setting forth any and all efforts undertaken to attempt service of the summons and complaint on EFRAIN RIVAS, and explaining why sanctions (including monetary sanctions of at least $500) should not be imposed for failure to file proof of service of the summons and complaint on all named defendants, in compliance with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.720.

Failure to file proof of service of the Summons and Complaint on EFRAIN RIVAS by May 30, 2025 may result in the Court setting an OSC re sanctions.

The Court notes that it may not enter judgment in an amount exceeding the amount demanded in the Complaint.  (CCP 585(b).)  The Court may not grant relief not demanded in the complaint by default judgment even though that relief otherwise would have been proper. (CCP § 580(a); Airs Aromatics, LLC v. CBL Data Recovery Technologies, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 1013, 1018 (default judgment for sum in excess of that demanded in complaint is void).  “It is fundamental to the concept of due process that a defendant be given notice of the existence of a lawsuit and notice of the specific relief which is sought in the complaint served upon him.” (Marriage of Lippel (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1160, 1166 [emphasis added].)  In light of these authorities, the parties may wish to consider whether seeking any defendant’s default based on the original complaint may be a futile act without first amending the complaint to give proper notice of the amount of damages sought.

The Initial Status Conference is CONTINUED TO June 6, 2025 at 10:00 am, Department 9.

The parties are ordered to file an updated Joint ISC report no later than May 30, 2025.

The previously imposed stay on discovery remains in effect.

The Court Clerk shall give notice of this order to Plaintiff.  Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this minute order as well as the August 23, 2024 Initial Status Conference order to all other parties and file proof of service of such.