CONTINUE

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).)

This package suffers from several deficiencies which preclude granting a default judgment. First, Plaintiff appears to be seeking recovery for damages not alleged in the First Amended Complaint, i.e., the nature of $106,000 in damages and $5,000 for “jewelries” are not clear. Second, the nature of Plaintiff’s costs are not clear, and it appears Plaintiff may be attempting to recover attorney fees despite proceeding in propria persona. Third, the proposed judgment is confusing, as it does not make the amount of damages clear because it appears to include unnecessary descriptions of the damages within the judgment itself. Fourth, Plaintiff’s entitlement to any damages is not clear given Plaintiff has provided only a narrative of events and conclusory statements without connecting the alleged conduct to her harm. Fifth, it is not clear why the corporate entities or Defendant Rachel Riddle would be liable here. Sixth, Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information as to Defendants’ nonmilitary status. Seventh, it is not clear if Plaintiff is seeking punitive damages, and if she is, if she has met the requirements to obtain such damages. Finally, the claims against Defendants have not been properly alleged, as they lack facts that would allow the Court to conclude that proper claims have been stated.