Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 18STCV02872, Date: 2023-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18STCV02872    Hearing Date: December 14, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Lee Arian, Department 27

HEARING DATE:     December 14, 2023                            TRIAL DATE:  Vacated

CASE:                         Estela Vera v. Maria Del Carmen Sanchez

CASE NO.:                 18STCV02872

APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Estela Vera

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

            On October 30, 2018, Plaintiff, Estela Vera, initiated this action against Defendant, Maria Del Carmen Sanchez, for injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident.  Plaintiff alleges she and her children were crossing the street when Defendant struck all of them with her vehicle.  Default was entered against Defendant on April 26, 2021.  Plaintiff then requested default judgment against Defendant in the sum of $20,520, consisting of $20,000 in general damages, and $520 in costs.

On August 25, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request for the following reasons:

·         The Complaint did not set forth any allegations against Defendant Maria Del Carmen Sanchez.  Although Defendant was identified in the caption of the Complaint, the allegations concern a “Marshall Dean Godfrey”.  Godfrey is not a party to this case.  “Although by a default a defendant admits the allegations in the complaint, the defendant who fails to answer admits only facts which are well pleaded.”  (Molen v. Friedman (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1156.)  Thus, the Court found the Complaint was not well pleaded and ordered Plaintiff to amend her Complaint.

·         Additionally, Plaintiff improperly identified at Item 2a of the CIV-100 that the demand of the complaint was $20,000.  The Court found that no such demand can be made in a personal injury action such as this and ordered Plaintiff to remove any amounts listed at Item 2a.

On October 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint removing any mention of a “Marshall Dean Godfrey”. On October 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed a new Request for Court Judgment.

After reviewing Plaintiff’s request, the Court finds the following deficiencies:

·         There is no proof of service of the Amended Complaint on Defendant. Therefore, Plaintiff filed the current Request for Court Judgment too soon, as Plaintiff must wait 30 days after service of the complaint to file for default judgment.

·         Additionally, Plaintiff continues to improperly indicate in Item 2a of the CIV-100 that the demand of the complaint was $20,000.  Plaintiff must properly fill out Item 2a.

Accordingly, the application for default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.  The Court sets a Status Conference re: Default Judgment and an OSC for $500 in sanctions pursuant to CCP 177.5 for failure to follow the court’s order re Item 2a of the CIV-100 for _____ at 8:30 AM. 

Dated:   December 14, 2023                           ___________________________________

                                                                                    Lee S. Arian

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.