Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 18STCV06270, Date: 2023-11-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18STCV06270    Hearing Date: November 2, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Lee S. Arian, Department 27

HEARING DATE:     November 2, 2023                             TRIAL DATE:  Vacated

CASE:                         Dennis Garcia, et al. v. Amado Gonzalez, et al.

CASE NO.:                 18STCV06270

APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Dennis Garcia, Guardian Ad Litem of Minor Valerie Garcia

RESPONDING PARTY:     N/A

On November 27, 2018, Plaintiff, Dennis Garcia, Guardian Ad Litem of Minor Valerie Garcia, filed this action against Defendants, Amado Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”), City of Los Angeles (“City”), and Does 1 through 20.  According to the Complaint, on March 4, 2018, Gonzalez negligently rented a horse to Plaintiff which Plaintiff rode while on City’s property.  Plaintiff suffered injury when she was thrown off and trampled by the horse.  

On January 10, 2019, Plaintiff served Gonzalez with the summons and complaint by substituted service and filed the proof of service on February 13, 2019. 

On January 30, 2019, Gonzalez filed an answer to the initial complaint.  City was dismissed from the case after its demurrer was sustained without leave to amend on September 10, 2019.

On November 7, 2019, Plaintiff served requests for admission on Defendant Gonzalez.  After receiving no responses, Plaintiff moved to deem the matters admitted via motion on September 29, 2020.  On June 16, 2021, the Court struck Gonzalez’s answer after he failed to appear for the final status conference on multiple occasions.

On November 10, 2021, Plaintiff served Gonzalez with the statement of damages.  Default was entered against Defendant on November 10, 2021.

On May 10, 2022, counsel for Plaintiff requested additional time to file the Default Judgment packet.  The Court continued the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Failure to Enter Default Judgment, as to defendant Amado Gonzalez to August 4, 2022.

On January 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed a default judgment application.  On the same day, Plaintiff dismissed Defendant Does 1 to 20.

On April 27, 2023, the Court rejected Plaintiff’s application because Item 1b on Form CIV-100 and Item 5a on Form JUD-100 did not identify all named plaintiffs in the action and Plaintiff’s request for general damages of $650,000.00 was unsubstantiated and grossly exceeded the special damages. 

On June 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed another default judgment application.  The Court denied the application on July 27, 2023, because (1) Plaintiff improperly sought recovery of investigative expenses, and (2) the request for $650,000 in general damages was not supported by the evidence presented.

On September 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed another default judgment application.  Plaintiff now requests default judgment against Gonzalez in the amount of $155,987.45, consisting of $4,725.71 in special damages, $150,000 in general damages, and $1,261.74 in additional costs. 

Upon review, the Court finds the application is still deficient for the following reasons:

·         Plaintiff’s request for $4,725.71 in special damages is comprised, in part, of $2,500 in future medical expenses.  However, Plaintiff does not provide any evidence supporting the necessity of future medical treatment for her injuries.  Based on the evidence present, the Court is inclined to award $2,225.71 in special damages.

·         While greatly improved, Plaintiff still does not substantiate $150,000 in general damages.  Plaintiff submits the declaration of her father and guardian ad litem, Dennis Garcia, which details his emotional distress in seeing how the incident has affected his daughter.  However, Mr. Garcia is not a party to this action.  Based on the evidence presented, the Court is inclined to award $20,000 in general damages.

·         Plaintiff still improperly seeks $528.34 in investigative costs.  Per CCP section 1033.5, investigative expenses are not allowable costs.

In sum, the Court is inclined to award a reduced judgment in the sum of $22,959.11, consisting of $2,225.71 in special damages, $20,000 in general damages, and $733.40 in costs.¿ If Plaintiff is satisfied with this judgment, Plaintiff should file an amended proposed judgment on Form JUD-100 and an amended request for entry of default judgment on Form CIV-100 reflecting this award.¿

Accordingly, Plaintiff application for default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.  The Status Conference re: Review of Default Judgment scheduled for November 2, 2023, is CONTINUED to December 4, 2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 27 of Spring Street Courthouse.  Plaintiff is to resubmit their default judgment application no later than 5 court days before the hearing.

Moving party to give notice. 

Dated:   November 2, 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.