Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 19STCV15216, Date: 2023-11-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV15216    Hearing Date: November 1, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Lee S. Arian, Department 27

HEARING DATE:     November 1, 2023                             TRIAL DATE:  Vacated

CASE:                         Orly Humberto Reyes, et al. v. Jose Antonio Isas, et al.

CASE NO.:                 19STCV15216

APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiffs Orly Humberto Reyes and Rosa Dalinda Reyes

RESPONDING PARTY:     N/A

On May 1, 2019, Plaintiffs Orly Humberto Reyes (“Orly”) and Rosa Dalinda Reyes (“Rosa”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants Jose Antonio Isas (“Jose”) and Brenda Isas (“Brenda”) (collectively, “Defendants”) arising from a November 21, 2018 motor vehicle accident.  Plaintiffs allege Jose was operating a motor vehicle owned by Brenda when the vehicle rear-ended Plaintiffs’ vehicle.  Plaintiff Blanca Lisette Reyes (“Blanca”) was later substituted as Orly’s successor-in-interest after Orly passed away.  

            Plaintiffs served Defendants with the summons, complaint, and statement of damages on May 24, 2019, by substituted service.  Default was entered against Jose on July 16, 2020, and against Brenda on July 22, 2020.  Doe defendants were dismissed from this action on October 4, 2021.

On December 1, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ application for default judgment because Plaintiffs did not submit Form CIV-100; Plaintiffs did not submit one proposed judgment on Form JUD-100 for both Plaintiffs; the application did not comply with Vehicle Code section 17151; prejudgment interest was improperly calculated; Blanca improperly claimed damages for pain and suffering; and Rosa’s declaration was insufficient to support her general damages request of $500,000. 

On September 16, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ application for default judgment because Plaintiffs did not accurately complete Item 7 on Form CIV-100; Plaintiffs did not accurately complete Item 7 of Form JUD-100; Rosa did not substantiate her request for $100,000 in general damages; and Plaintiffs’ application did not include a declaration calculating interest. 

On May 16, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ application for default judgment, filed May 16, 2023, for inconsistencies in the CIV-100 and JUD-100 forms and failing to apportion liability between Jose and Brenda pursuant to Vehicle Code section 17151.

On August 24, 2023, Plaintiffs filed another application for default judgment.  Plaintiffs now seek separate judgments against Defendants as follows:

·         Plaintiff Rosa Dalinda Reyes seeks a judgment against Defendants in the sum of $140,642.32, consisting of $39,963.40 in special damages, $100,000 in general damages, and $678.92 in costs.

·         Plaintiff Blanca Lisette Reyes as successor in interest to Orly Humberto Reyes seeks a judgment against Defendants in the sum of $13,077.92, consisting $12,399 in special damages and $678.92 in costs.

            Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiffs sufficiently support the judgments requested.   However, the application is still deficient for the following reasons:

·         The declaration of Plaintiffs’ counsel, Vanessa Fantasia, indicates costs of $678.92 were incurred in this matter.  Yet, each Plaintiff seeks $678.92 in costs for a total of $1,357.84.  Plaintiffs together cannot recover more than $678.92 in costs.

·         The CIV-100 forms do not match the JUD-100 form.  Plaintiff Rosa Dalinda Reyes’s CIV-100 form indicates judgment is sought against both defendants yet the JUD-100 form indicates she seeks a judgment against Defendant Brenda Isas only.  Additionally, the name listed in Item 1b of Plaintiff Rosa Dalinda Reyes’s CIV-100 form does not match her name in the Complaint.

·         Plaintiffs submit two requests for entry of default judgment (CIV-100) but only one proposed judgment (JUD-100).  Plaintiffs are directed to submit separate proposed judgments.

·         Item 2f of Plaintiff Blanca Lisette Reyes’s CIV-100 form does not properly state the total judgment to be entered.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ application for default judgment is DENIED without prejudice. The Court sets a Status Conference Re: Default Judgment for December 1, 2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 27 at Spring Street Courthouse.  Plaintiffs are to resubmit their default judgment application no later than 5 court days before the conference.

Moving party to give notice. 

Dated:   November 1, 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.