Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: BC682799, Date: 2024-12-17 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: December 17, 2024

Case Name: Caceres, et al. v. Nishanian, et al.

Case No.: 23STCV02456

Matter: OSC Re: Default Judgment 

Ruling: The Court will enter default judgment in the amount of $25,000.  The 

Doe Defendants are hereby dismissed.

Plaintiffs to give notice.

This is a matter relating to breach of the warranty of habitability.  Plaintiffs Luis and Maria Caceres seek default judgment against Defendant Joe Nishanian.

Previously, the Court ruled: 

While Plaintiffs request $100,000 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, Plaintiffs 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 Defendant’s default.  (Cole v. Roebling Const. Co. (1909) 156 Cal. 443; Leo v. Dunlap (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 24, 27-28.)

Further, Plaintiffs failed to (1) specifically explain how $100,000 in damages were computed and what these damages represent; (2) dismiss the Doe Defendants; and (3) request damages on form CIV-100.

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

Plaintiffs failed to remedy any of the errors from their prior attempt at default judgment.  They did file a “statement of damages” requesting $100,000, but this is not sufficient because this document was served after default was already entered.

The Court will enter a default judgment in the amount of $25,000.  The Doe Defendants are hereby dismissed.

Plaintiff to give notice.