Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV45595, Date: 2024-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV45595    Hearing Date: January 23, 2024    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On December 13, 2021, Plaintiff Progressive Select Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Yonathan Maldonaldo Turcios, Nelson A. Maldonaldo Velasquez (“Defendants”), and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive for motor vehicle negligence. The complaint alleges on October 10, 2019, Plaintiff’s insured Kimberly Gonzalez was involved in an automobile collision caused by Defendants’ negligence and resulting bodily injuries and damages to Plaintiff.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

When a defendant has been served and no answer, demurrer, or certain motion has been filed within the time specified in the summons, the clerk shall enter the default of the defendant. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 585, subd. (b).) The court shall then render judgment in the plaintiff’s favor, not exceeding the amount stated in the complaint or statement of damages, as appears by the evidence to be just. (Ibid.)

In an action to recover damages for personal injury or wrongful death, the plaintiff shall serve a statement of damages on the defendant before a default may be taken. (Code of Civ. Proc., §425.11, subd. (c).) Plaintiff must submit a copy of the Statement of Damages served on Defendant. (Cal. Rules of Court 3.250, subd. (a)(20).) “It is well settled that a plaintiff may not take a default against a defendant without giving the defendant actual notice of the amount of damages claimed.” (Department of Fair Employment & Housing v. Ottovich (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 706, 712.) Where, as here, the action is for personal injury, the amount of damages claimed may not be stated in the complaint and must instead be stated in a separate statement of damages. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 425.11).

A plaintiff cannot claim in her application for default judgment any award which is greater than damages claimed in the complaint or statement of damages, including even where the plaintiff claims no specific damages in the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 425.11, 585, subd. (a); see Falahati v. Kondo (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 823, 830-831; see also Parish v. Peters (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 202, 216 (awarding default damages to a party whose complaint seeks damages ‘according to proof’ offends due process).)

When a default is entered, the party who requested the entry of default must obtain a default judgment against the defaulting party within 45 days after the default was entered, unless the court has granted an extension of time.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.110(h).)

III.        DISCUSSION

On May 31, 2023, this Court entered default against Defendants. The Doe Defendants were also dismissed. Plaintiff requested default judgment against Defendants seeking $49,331.28, consisting of $48,728.28 in damages as demanded in the complaint and $603.00 in costs.

On September 5, 2023, this Court denied Plaintiff’s default judgment application without prejudice. The Court noted under Vehicle Code section 17151, Defendant Velasquez, as the owner of the vehicle Defendant Turcios operated in the incident, cannot be held liable for more than $15,000.00 in bodily injury and $5,000.00 in property damage. Furthermore, Plaintiff sought to recover the entire judgment requested from both Defendants without apportioning liability in accordance with Vehicle Code section 17151. The Court ordered Plaintiff to apportion liability between Defendants by either indicating so at Item 7 of the JUD-100 Form or as an attachment to the JUD-100 Form.

On September 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed a new default judgment application. However, Plaintiff did not comply with the Court’s September 5, 2023 order. Plaintiff neither apportioned liability between Defendants by indicating so at Item 7 of the JUD-100 Form nor as an attachment to the JUD-100 Form.

IV.         CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s default judgment is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff is ordered to resubmit the JUD-100 Form in compliance with Vehicle Code section 17151 by apportioning liability between Defendants on Item 7 of the JUD-100 Form or as an attachment to the JUD-100 Form.  The Court notes that Plaintiff’s further failure to follow court direction is sanctionable and can lead to the Court denying the default judgment request and denying the action.  The Court simply does not have time to adjudicate actions in which a party wastes the Court’s time by failing to follow clear and reasonably simple directions.

Moving party to give notice.

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.

Dated this 23^rd day of January 2024