Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 20STCV09650, Date: 2023-09-15 Tentative Ruling
All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument. 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 you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court. This does not excuse a moving party's need to do one of the following: appear; submit; or take a matter off calendar by canceling the motion in the case reservation system before issuance of the tentative ruling if the matter moving party does not intend to proceed.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 20STCV09650 Hearing Date: April 11, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the documents submitted in support of a default judgment, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On March 10, 2020, Plaintiff Michelle Lyons (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Baby Geniuses Early Learning Center (“Defendant”), Doe Employees 1-4, and Does 5-25 for battery, assault, negligence, negligent hiring, supervision, and retention of employee, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and false imprisonment.
On June 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing service by personal hand delivery of a statement of damages on Defendant on February 3, 2021.
On October 13, 2021, the clerk entered Defendant’s default.
On November 29, 2021, the Court dismissed the Doe Employee defendants and Doe defendants with prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On June 23, 2022, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice. On October 12, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal.
On November 7, 2022, the Court again dismissed the action without prejudice. On March 8, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal.
On March 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed a statement of damages with the previously-filed proof of service showing service on Defendant on February 3, 2021. The statement of damages listed (1) $2,500,000.00 for pain, suffering, and inconvenience, (2) $2,500,000.00 for emotional distress, (3) past medical expenses “according to proof,” and (4) $5,000,000.00 in punitive damages.
On August 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed a revised statement of damages that requested $15,046.48 for past medical expenses (as well as the amounts listed in the previous statement of damages). A proof of service was attached showing service of the revised statement of damages on Defendant’s “Employee/Authorized Person to Accept” on August 4, 2023.
On September 15, 2023, the Court vacated Defendant’s October 13, 2021 default based on Plaintiff's post-default service on Defendant of a revised statement of damages.
On October 13, 2023, the clerk again entered Defendant’s default.
On March 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed a request for Court judgment to be heard on April 11, 2024.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Plaintiff Michelle Lyons asks the Court to enter a default judgment against Defendant Baby Geniuses Early Learning Center and award Plaintiff $1,015,046.48 consisting of $1,000,000.00 in general damages, $15,046.48 in special 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, 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.) 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.)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff has submitted a completed application with all required information. The Court finds that Plaintiff has carried her burden of establishing a prima facie case for damages but that the evidence does not support a general damage award of more than $200,000.00. Therefore, the Court grants the petition and awards Plaintiff $215,046.48.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the application of Plaintiff Michelle Lyons for default judgment against Defendant Baby Geniuses Early Learning Center filed on March 27, 2024. The Court awards Plaintiff Michelle Lyons $215,046.48 in damages.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.