Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 21STCV16989, Date: 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: March 2, 2023

Case Name: Mejia v. Maravilla, Jr., et al.

Case No.: 20STCV37776

Matter: Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Default Judgment 

Tentative Ruling: The Default Judgment Application is denied without prejudice.

Plaintiff to give notice.

This is a matter relating to breach of the warranty of habitability.  Plaintiff Javier Mejia seeks default judgment against Defendants Isidro Maravilla, Jr. and Gema P. Delacruz.

While Plaintiff requests $73,000 in damages, the Complaint fails to make any specific request for damages.  This is problematic as “[t]he relief granted to the plaintiff, if there is no answer, cannot exceed that demanded in the complaint . . . .”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 580.)  Further, phrases such as “in an amount not less than” do not give notice for the purposes of Code Civ. Proc. § 580.  (Electronic Funds Solutions, LLC v. Murphy (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1173-1174.)   

Thus, Plaintiff can either accept the jurisdictional minimum of $25,001 in damages or else amend the Complaint’s allegations as to damages, which would be a material change opening Defendants’ default.  (Cole v. Roebling Const. Co. (1909) 156 Cal. 443; Leo v. Dunlap (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 24, 27-28.)

Further, Plaintiff failed to (1) properly request default judgment for $73,000 on form CIV-100 and (2) dismiss the Doe Defendants. 

For all these reasons, the Default Judgment Application is denied without prejudice.

Plaintiff to give notice.