Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 20STCV26659, Date: 2024-01-24 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: 20STCV26659 Hearing Date: February 23, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the documents submitted in support of a default judgment, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On July 15, 2020, Plaintiff Corentin Villemeur (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Elvis Orlando Guevara and Does 1-100 for motor vehicle negligence, negligence entrustment of vehicle, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, hit and run, with punitive damages.
On April 19, 2021, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Defendants Elvis Guevara Vasquez, aka Elvis Orlando Guevara, aka Elvis Orlando Guevara Vasquez (“Defendant”), and Does 1-100 for motor vehicle negligence, negligence entrustment of vehicle, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, hit and run, with punitive damages.
On June 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing personal service on Defendant of the first amended summons, first amended complaint, statement of damages, and other documents on Defendant on June 9, 2021. On December 30, 2021, Plaintiff filed an amended proof of service.
On January 25, 2022, the clerk entered Defendant’s default.
On
March 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed a statement of damages along with the amended proof
of service showing personal service on Defendant on June 21, 2021.
On March
1, 2023, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice. On January 24, 2024,
the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal.
On February 2, 2024, the Court dismissed the Doe defendants without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On January 31, 2024, Plaintiff filed a request for default judgment.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Plaintiff’s CIV-100 form requests that the Court enter a default judgment against Defendant and award Plaintiff $10,541,234.48, consisting of $10,000,000.00 in general damages and $541,234.48 in special damages.
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
Plaintiff’s request for special damages is based on a December 30, 2022 letter from the Department of Health Care Services providing “an estimate of injury-related services paid to date by the Medi-Cal Program" for Plaintiff. The letter states that the “[e]stimated amount” of $541,234.48 is “NOT THE FINAL MEDI-CAL LIEN AMOUNT” and it instructs Plaintiff not to remit payment “until a final review has been conducted and you receive the final lien amount.”
In his declaration, however, Plaintiff’s counsel asserts that “$561,284.34” (an amount the Court does not see in the Department of Health Care Services letter) is the “total lien amount” for Medi-Cal. (Dourian Dec. ¶ 3.) Counsel states that “the State of California has not provided our office with any further or supplemental lien amounts, and I am unaware of any other liens claimed in this matter.” (Dourian Dec. ¶ 3.)
As the Department of Health Care Services letter states, “[i]n the event that an updated estimate is required for a legal proceeding, [Plaintiff] must provide advanced notice and documentation of the upcoming event to the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) 30 days prior to the proceeding.” Counsel does not state whether he has requested an updated estimate from the Department of Health Care Services.
For the reasons stated above, the Court denies the
application without prejudice.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Plaintiff Corentin Villemeur’s application for default judgment against Defendant Elvis Guevara Vasquez, aka Elvis Orlando Guevara, aka Elvis Orlando Guevara Vasquez, filed on January 31, 2024, without prejudice.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.