CONTINUED to a date to be determined at the hearing.  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”].)

This package suffers from several deficiencies which preclude granting a default judgment. First, Plaintiff has failed to submit a complete default judgment package, as he has not provided a proposed judgment or complete CIV-100 form for the Court’s review. Second, 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 his harm and providing evidence to support each element of the claims alleged in his complaint.