Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 24STCV33743, Date: 2025-04-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV33743    Hearing Date: April 14, 2025    Dept: 9

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint on 2/11/25.

However, Plaintiff’s Counsel has failed to file proof of service of the operative Summons and Complaint (the Amended Summons and First Amended Complaint) on some of the named defendants, including ABSOLUTE DOLLAR.

No later than June 6, 2025, Plaintiff’s Counsel must file either proof of service of the operative Summons and Complaint (the Amended Summons and First Amended Complaint) on ABSOLUTE DOLLAR or a declaration explaining the failure to file proofs of service of the operative Summons and Complaint (the Amended Summons and First Amended Complaint) on ABSOLUTE DOLLAR, setting forth any and all efforts undertaken to attempt service of the operative Summons and Complaint (the Amended Summons and First Amended Complaint) on ABSOLUTE DOLLAR, and explaining why sanctions (including monetary sanctions of at least $500) should not be imposed for failure to file proof of service of the operative Summons and Complaint (the Amended Summons and First Amended Complaint) on some of the named defendants, in compliance with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.720.

Failure to file proof of service of the operative Summons and Complaint (the Amended Summons and First Amended Complaint) on ABSOLUTE DOLLAR by June 6, 2025 may result in the Court setting an OSC re sanctions.

On April 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed proof of service of the operative Summons and Complaint (the Amended Summons and First Amended Complaint) on Defendant LOVEPREET KAUR.

If Defendant LOVEPREET KAUR fails to timely respond to the service of the operative Summons and Complaint (the Amended Summons and First Amended Complaint), then Plaintiff should pursue LOVEPREET KAUR’s default with diligence. 

Specifically, if Defendant LOVEPREET KAUR fails to timely respond to the service of the operative Summons and Complaint (the Amended Summons and First Amended Complaint), then by no later than June 6, 2025, Plaintiff’s Counsel must file either a request for entry of LOVEPREET KAUR’s default or a declaration explaining the failure to seek and obtain LOVEPREET KAUR’s default, setting forth any and all efforts undertaken to obtain LOVEPREET KAUR’s default, and explaining why sanctions (including monetary sanctions of at least $1,000) should not be imposed for failure to timely seek LOVEPREET KAUR’s default, in compliance with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.720.

The Court reminds the parties that ultimately, the Court may not enter default 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].)  Thus, for example, where the complaint does not request attorney fees, the court cannot award fees against a defaulting defendant. It makes no difference that the fees are awardable by statute. (Feminist Women's Health Ctr. v. Blythe (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1641, 1675).  Accordingly, prior to seeking any Defendant’s default, Plaintiff may wish to review the operative Complaint for whether the operative Complaint fails to give notice of the amount of damages that Plaintiff seeks to recover; if so, it may be futile for Plaintiff to seek entry of Defendant’s default without first amending the Complaint to clearly state and give notice of the amount of damages that Plaintiff is seeking to recover.  In the event that Plaintiff wishes to amend the Complaint for this purpose, the Court hereby lifts the stay to grant leave to amend the operative complaint.  If Defendant again fails to respond upon being served with the amended complaint, a request for entry of Defendant’s default on the Amended Complaint may lead to a request for entry of default judgment in an amount equal to or less than that stated in the Amended Complaint.

The previously imposed stay on discovery remains in effect.

The Initial Status Conference is continued to June 13, 2025 at 10:00 am.

If any Defendant appears before then, the parties are to file a Joint Initial Status Conference Report by no later than June 6, 2025 in compliance with the Court’s Initial Status Conference order.

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 Initial Status Conference order to all other parties and file proof of service of such.