Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 20STCV28304, Date: 2024-02-27 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: 20STCV28304    Hearing Date: February 27, 2024    Dept: 28

Having considered the documents submitted in support of a default judgment, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On July 28, 2020, Plaintiff Wendy M. Jimenez Arias (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Benjamin Santiago Cruz (“Cruz”) for motor vehicle tort. 

On September 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Cruz and Defendant Carlos Sabino Osorno (“Osorno”) for motor vehicle tort.  

On November 7, 2022, the clerk entered Cruz’s default. 

On November 8, 2022, the clerk entered Osorno’s default. 

On November 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed revised Statements of Damages with attached proofs of service showing substituted service on Cruz and Osorno on November 21, 2023 and November 18, 2023. 

Also on November 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default judgment against Cruz and Osorno.  Plaintiff filed a supporting declaration on December 4, 2023 and an incomplete proposed judgment form on January 23, 2024. 

PARTY’S REQUEST 

Plaintiff asks the Court to enter a default judgment against Defendants Benjamin Santiago Cruz and Carlos Sabino Osorno and award Plaintiff $150,000.00, consisting of $150,000.00 in general 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 

“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, 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.) 

Here, Plaintiff served revised Statements of Damages on Cruz and Osorno after the clerk entered their defaults, defeating the purpose of the statement of damages.  Plaintiff’s service of new statements of damages “opened” the default, requiring that the Court vacate the default to give Cruz and Osorno an opportunity to decide whether to contest the case based on the revised information about their potential liability. 

The Court vacates Cruz’s default entered on November 7, 2022 and Osorno’s default entered on November 8, 2022. 

The Court denies Plaintiff’s application for entry of default judgment. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES Plaintiff Wendy M. Jimenez Arias’s application for entry of default judgment against Defendants Benjamin Santiago Cruz and Carlos Sabino Osorno filed on November 30, 2023. 

The Court VACATES Defendant Benjamin Santiago Cruz’s default entered on November 7, 2022. 

The Court VACATES Defendant Carlos Sabino Osorno’s default entered on November 8, 2022. 

The Court sets an OSC Re: Dismissal for Failure to Enter Default for March 20, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse. 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.