Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 25STCV07663, Date: 2025-06-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 25STCV07663 Hearing Date: June 13, 2025 Dept: 9
Plaintiff has
filed proof of service of the Operative Summons and Complaint as to certain
defendants who have not responded, including PARIS CROISSANTS & SONS, INC.
If Defendant fails
to timely respond to the service of the operative Summons and Complaint,
Plaintiff must pursue that Defendant’s default with diligence.
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
First Amended Complaint for whether the operative First Amended Complaint gives
notice of the amount of damages that Plaintiff seeks to recover; if the operative
First Amended Complaint fails to do so, it may be futile for Plaintiff to seek
entry of Defendant’s default without first amending the operative First Amended
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 operative First Amended Complaint for
this purpose, the Court hereby lifts the stay to grant leave to amend the operative
First Amended Complaint. If Defendant
again fails to respond upon being served with the amended complaint, a request
for entry of Defendant’s default on the Second 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 Second Amended Complaint.
No later than August
4, 2025, Plaintiff’s Counsel must: (a) file either a request for entry
of PARIS CROISSANTS & SONS, INC.’s default or a declaration explaining the
failure to seek and obtain PARIS CROISSANTS & SONS, INC.’s default, setting
forth any and all efforts undertaken to obtain PARIS CROISSANTS & SONS,
INC.’s default, and explaining why sanctions (including monetary sanctions of
at least $1,000) should not be imposed for failure to timely seek PARIS
CROISSANTS & SONS, INC.’s default, in compliance with California Rules of
Court, Rule 3.720, or (b) file an amended complaint that gives notice of the
amount of damages that Plaintiff will be seeking to recover in the event of a
default and default judgment, and file proof of service of the operative amended
complaint and amended summons. Failure
to comply by August 4, 2025 may result in the Court setting an OSC re
sanctions.
The Initial Status
Conference is continued to August 11, 2025 at 10:00 am. If Defendant appears before then, the parties
are to file a Joint Initial Status Conference Report by no later than August
4, 2025 in compliance with the Court’s Initial Status Conference order.
The Court’s
Judicial Assistant shall give notice to Plaintiff’s Counsel. Plaintiff’s Counsel is ordered to give notice
to all other parties.