Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 20STCV11720, Date: 2024-01-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV11720 Hearing Date: February 16, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the documents submitted in support of a default judgment, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On March 24, 2020, Plaintiff Arthur Brunston (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Silver Lake Medical Center (“SLMC”), LA Downtown Medical Center, LLC (“LADMC”), and Does 1-50 for premises liability.
On January 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing substituted service of the summons, complaint, and other documents on SLMC on January 6, 2021.
On July 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing substituted service of the summons, complaint, statement of damages, and other documents on SLMC on July 21, 2021.
On November 15, 2021, the clerk entered SLMC’s default.
On March 11, 2022, the Court dismissed LADMC without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On June 2, 2022, the Court dismissed the Doe defendants with prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On October 25, 2022, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice. On June 27, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal.
On December 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed a request for Court judgment, to be heard on January 18, 2024. On January 18, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to submit a revised CIV-100 form or JUD-100 form, or both forms, to make them consistent. On January 24, 2024, Plaintiff submitted a revised CIV-100 form.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Plaintiff requests that the Court enter a default judgment against SLMC and award Plaintiff $222,125.67, consisting of $200,000.00 in general damages, $20,378.89 in special damages, and $1,746.78 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
“Where 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), 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, supra, ¶ 5:258, p. 5-70.)
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Arthur Brunston’s application for default judgment against Defendant Silver Lake Medical Center filed on December 11, 2023 and January 24, 2024. The Court awards Plaintiff Arthur Brunston $222,125.67.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.