Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 20STCV10933, Date: 2023-06-20 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.
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: 20STCV10933 Hearing Date: September 13, 2023 Dept: 28
Having considered the documents submitted in support of a default judgment, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On March 18, 2020, Plaintiffs Latiera Harmon (“Harmon”) and Ainsley Peace (“Peace”) filed this action against Defendants Kathryn Laughlin (“Laughlin”), Therese Willging (“Willging”), and Does 1-10 for motor vehicle negligence.
On July 27, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a proof of service showing personal service of a “Statement of Damages X4” on Willging on July 24, 2020.
On August 27, 2020, the clerk entered default against Willging.
On September 3, 2020, Willging filed an answer.
On September 21, 2020, the Court set aside Willging’s default and deemed Willging’s answer filed.
On August 22, 2022, the Court dismissed Willging with prejudice at Plaintiffs’ request.
On September 26, 2022, the clerk entered default against Laughlin.
On January 17, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a statement of damages (for the damages Harmon sought against Laughlin) with a proof of service showing substituted service of a “Statement of Damages X2” on Laughlin on August 9, 2022.
Also on January 17, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a statement of damages (for the damages Peace sought against Laughlin) with a proof of service showing substituted service of a “Statement of Damages X2” on Laughlin on August 9, 2022.
On January 18, 2023, the Court dismissed the Doe defendants without prejudice at Plaintiffs’ request.
On August 7, 2023, Plaintiffs filed requests for court judgment to be heard on September 13, 2023.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Plaintiff Ainsley Peace requests that the Court enter a default judgment against Defendant Kathryn Laughlin and award Plaintiff $39,255.00, consisting of $9,000.00 in special damages, $30,000.00 in general damages, $0.00 in prejudgment interest, $0.00 in attorney’s fees, and $255.00 in costs.
Plaintiff Latiera Harmon requests that the Court enter a default judgment against Defendant Kathryn Laughlin and award Plaintiff $37,255.00, consisting of $7,000.00 in special damages, $30,000.00 in general damages, $0.00 in prejudgment interest, $0.00 in attorney’s fees, and $255.00 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
Plaintiffs have submitted completed applications with all required information. Plaintiffs have provided sufficient proof of the damages requested. The Court grants the applications.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Ainsley Peace’s application for default judgment filed on August 7, 2023. The Court enters judgment of $39,255.00 against Defendant Kathryn Laughlin.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Latiera Harmon’s application for default judgment filed on August 7, 2023. The Court enters judgment of $37,255.00 against Defendant Kathryn Laughlin.
Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this ruling.