Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 20STCV08783, Date: 2023-09-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV08783 Hearing Date: September 21, 2023 Dept: 28
Having considered the documents submitted in support of a default judgment, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On March 3, 2020, Plaintiffs Jose Adan Hernandez and Zoila Hernandez filed this action against Defendants City of Los Angeles (“City”), Los Angeles Fire Department, Francisco Martinez (“Martinez”), Cosme Colon Fajardo ("Fajardo"), and Does 1-25 for negligence and loss of consortium.
On April 3, 2020, Plaintiff Jose Adan Hernandez ("Plaintiff") filed a first amended complaint removing Zoila Hernandez and the cause of action for loss of consortium.
On May 21, 2020, the City and Martinez filed answers.
On October 7, 2020, the City filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Fajardo and Roes 1-10 for indemnification, apportionment of fault, declaratory relief, and motor vehicle negligence.
On February 6, 2023, the clerk entered Fajardo’s default on the cross-complaint at the City’s request.
On March 2, 2023, the City filed a statement of damages sought against Fajardo. On March 24, 2023, the City filed a proof of service showing the statement of damages was personally served on Liliana Funez at Fajardo’s telephonic direction on March 21, 2023.
On August 7, 2023, the City filed a request for court judgment against Fajardo to be heard on September 21, 2023.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Cross-Complainant City of Los Angeles requests that the Court enter a default judgment against Cross-Defendant Cosme Colon Fajardo and award the City $660,000.00, consisting of $560,000.00 in special damages, $100,000.00 in general damages, $0.00 in prejudgment interest, $0.00 in attorney’s fees, and $0.00 in costs.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Default judgment
“[With exceptions that do not apply here,] [a] party seeking a default judgment on declarations must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Application to Enter Default) (form CIV-100) . . . The following must be included in the documents filed with the clerk:
“(1) Except in unlawful detainer cases, a brief summary of the case identifying the parties and the nature of plaintiff's claim;
“(2) Declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested;
“(3) Interest computations as necessary;
“(4) A memorandum of costs and disbursements;
“(5) A declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant against whom judgment is sought;
“(6) A proposed form of judgment;
“(7) A dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under Code of Civil Procedure section 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment;
“(8) Exhibits as necessary; and
“(9) A request for attorney fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties.”
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a).)
B. Damages
On a request for default judgment, “[w]here a cause of action is stated in the complaint, plaintiff merely needs to introduce evidence establishing a prima facie case for damages.” (L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2023) ¶ 5:213.1, p. 5-56 (Cal. Practice Guide: Procedure), citing Johnson v. Stanhiser (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 357, 361 [trial court erred in applying preponderance of the evidence standard].)
The relief granted to a plaintiff upon entry of a defendant's default cannot exceed the amount demanded in the complaint or, for personal injury cases where damages may not be stated in the complaint, the amount listed in the statement of damages. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 580, subd. (a), 585, subd. (b).) “The notice requirement of section 580 was designed to insure fundamental fairness.” (Becker v. S.P.V. Construction Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 489, 494 (Becker).) The statute insures that “defendants in cases which involve a default judgment have adequate notice of the judgments that may be taken against them. [Citation.] ‘If a judgment other than that which is demanded is taken against him, [the defendant] has been deprived of his day in court—a right to a hearing on the matter adjudicated.’ ’’ (Id. at p. 493.) A trial court exceeds its jurisdiction if it awards damages in excess of the amount specified in the complaint or statement of damages. (Id. at p. 494; see Cal. Practice Guide: Procedure, supra, ¶ 5:258, p. 5-70.)
The court “shall hear the evidence offered by the plaintiff, and shall render judgment in the plaintiff’s favor for that relief, not exceeding the amount stated in the complaint, in the statement required by Section 425.11, or in the statement provided for by Section 425.115, as appears by the evidence to be just. If the taking of an account, or the proof of any fact, is necessary to enable the court to give judgment or to carry the judgment into effect, the court may take the account or hear the proof . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 585, subd. (b).)
“[T]he court in its discretion may permit the use of affidavits, in lieu of personal testimony, as to all or any part of the evidence or proof required or permitted to be offered, received, or heard . . . . The facts stated in the affidavit or affidavits shall be within the personal knowledge of the affiant and shall be set forth with particularity, and each affidavit shall show affirmatively that the affiant, if sworn as a witness, can testify competently thereto.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 585, subd. (d).)
DISCUSSION
A. The Court vacates the default because it was entered before service of the statement of damages.
The purpose of the statement of damages is to ensure that “defendants in cases which involve a default judgment have adequate notice of the judgments that may be taken against them. [Citation.] ‘If a judgment other than that which is demanded is taken against him, [the defendant] has been deprived of his day in court—a right to a hearing on the matter adjudicated.’ ’’ (Becker, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 493.)
“In personal injury and wrongful death actions, the complaint must not state the amount of damages sought [citations]. Therefore, before a default may be entered, plaintiff must serve defendant with a statement of ‘the nature and amount of damages being sought.’ ” (Cal. Practice Guide: Procedure, supra, ¶ 5:82, p. 5-27, citing Code Civ. Proc., § 425.11.) “Proof of service of a [statement of damages under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.11] must accompany any request for entry of default to assure that defendants received actual notice of their potential liability.” (Ibid.)
The clerk entered Farjardo’s default on the City’s cross-complaint February 6, 2023. The City did not serve a statement of damages on Fajardo until March 21, 2023. The Court therefore vacates the default and denies the request for entry of default judgment.
B. Additional issues
The City has provided no evidence to support its request for $660,000 in damages. The City states: "Plaintiff’s case had not settled. Therefore, City does not know the exact amount of damages but has estimated that Plaintiff could ask for as much as $600,000. City served Fajardo personally with a Statement of Damages which has the estimated amount of $660,000."
The City
does not explain the basis for its estimated damage amount or provide any evidence to
support it. The City has not established
a prima facie case for damages. (See Cal.
Practice Guide: Procedure, supra, ¶ 5:213.1, p. 5-56.)
In addition, the City has not dismissed the Roe Cross-Defendants.
CONCLUSION
The Court VACATES the default entered against Cross-Defendant Cosme Colon Fajardo.
The Court DENIES the application for default judgment filed by Cross-Complainant City of Los Angeles on August 7, 2023.
The Court sets an OSC re: Status of Entry of Default on November 8, 2023, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.