Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 25STCV05692, Date: 2025-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25STCV05692    Hearing Date: May 23, 2025    Dept: 9

25STCV05692

5/23/25

ORDER

Plaintiff’s Counsel has failed to file proof of service of the Operative Amended Summons and First Amended Complaint on ALL NAMED DEFENDANTS.  The proofs of service of summons previously filed between March 10, 2025 and March 12, 2025 reflect service of the original summons and complaint – not the Operative Amended Summons and First Amended Complaint.

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 serving Defendants with the operative complaint (which does not identify the dollar amount of damages that Plaintiff is seeking for purposes of any default judgment) and prior to seeking any Defendant’s default, Plaintiff may wish to review the operative Complaint for whether the operative Complaint gives notice of the amount of damages that Plaintiff seeks to recover; if the operative Complaint fails to do 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 further amend the Complaint for this purpose, the Court hereby lifts the stay to grant leave to amend the operative complaint.  Plaintiff may file a further amended complaint by no later than June 20, 2025.  If Defendant fails to respond upon being served with the amended complaint, a request for entry of Defendant’s default on the Amended Complaint may then possibly lead to a request for entry of default judgment in an amount equal to or less than that stated in the Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff’s unilateral initial case management conference statement filed on 5/19/25 indicates that: (1) Plaintiff intends to add a class representative, and (2) there is a severance agreement that may impact Plaintiff’s claims. 

The Court hereby lifts the stay to grant leave for Plaintiff to further amend the operative complaint to add a class representative.  If Plaintiff wishes to do so, Plaintiff may file a further amended complaint by no later than June 20, 2025. 

By no later than July 21, 2025, Plaintiff’s Counsel must file either proof of service of the Operative Summons and Complaint on ALL NAMED DEFENDANTS or a declaration explaining the failure to file proofs of service of the Operative Summons and Complaint on ALL NAMED DEFENDANTS, setting forth any and all efforts undertaken to attempt service of the Operative Summons and Complaint on ALL NAMED DEFENDANTS, 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 on all 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 on ALL NAMED DEFENDANTS by July 21, 2025 may result in the Court setting an OSC re sanctions.

By no later than July 21, 2025, the parties must file a Joint Statement regarding their meet and confer efforts concerning the impact of the severance agreement (if any) on Plaintiff’s claims in the instant action.

The initial status conference is CONTINUED to JULY 28, 2025 at 10 am.

The previously imposed stay on discovery remains in effect.

Plaintiff is ordered to download this minute order as well as the Initial Status Conference order, give notice to all other parties, and file proof of service of such.