TENTATIVE RULING 

Plaintiff Sopanha Chamroeun’s Request for Default Judgment is CONTINUED to be determined at hearing to allow Plaintiff to address the following deficiencies.

The Court has concerns about the propriety of service upon four of the five Defendants. First, Defendant Alexa Maghloubi was served at 8733 Juniper Street, but the declaration of diligence states that an employee indicated Alexa Maghloubi does not work there, such that it is not clear how this service complies with Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20, subdivision (b). As to Defendant Auto Zone General Auto Repair and Defendant Fifos Body & Fender, it is not clear how both businesses can be at the same address, i.e., the Court has doubts that Defendant Seyed Maghloubi was the proper agent for service of process for Defendant Auto Zone General Auto Repair. As to Defendant Zia Siavashpour, it is not clear from the declaration of diligence that Defendant Zia Siavashpour resided at the identified address, as the person served did not so state, nor does the process server describe the attempts to determine the address was proper.

As to the merits of the default judgment request, it is axiomatic that “[p]laintiffs in a default judgment proceeding must prove they are entitled to the damages claimed.” (Kim v. Westmore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 288.) While a default generally admits the allegations of the complaint, this rule does not relieve a plaintiff of a duty to establish causation and damages. (See Ostling v. Loring (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1731, 1745 [sufficiency of evidence supporting default is not reviewed only “as to matters for which no proof is required by virtue of the admission by default of the allegations of the complaint . . . as to damages which, despite default, require proof the general rule does not apply”].) Punitive damages are warranted only “where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).)

Notably, the complaint is devoid of specific allegations as to each Defendant, and Plaintiff’s declaration simply states that Defendant Alexa Maghloubi rear-ended Plaintiff’s vehicle. The nature of the involvement of the other four defendants is entirely unclear, as Plaintiff has provided no information in this regard. It is also not clear why Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages of $336,800. The records provided by Plaintiff do not show expenditure of funds in the amount of $37,800, as stated by Plaintiff’s counsel, and the Court lacks a basis to conclude that Plaintiff will suffer future damage of $299,000, as she does not sufficiently describe the nature of her injuries and how it affects her ability to work, live, or participate in other activities of daily living.