Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 20STCV35407, Date: 2025-04-11 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: 20STCV35407 Hearing Date: April 11, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the documents submitted in support of a default judgment, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On September 16, 2020, Plaintiff Dexter Fuentes (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants 3 Alameda Plaza LLC (“Defendant”) and Does 1-20 for assault, battery, premises liability, negligence, respondeat superior, and negligent hiring, training, retention, and supervision.
On March 9, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to serve the summons and complaint by serving the Secretary of State.
On September 26 and November 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing service on the Secretary of State of the summons, complaint, statement of damages, and other documents on September 21, 2022.
On November 9, 2022, the clerk entered Defendant’s default.
On May 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed a statement of damages claiming $250,000.00 for pain, suffering, and inconvenience, $100,000.00 for emotional distress, $50,000.00 for medical expenses to date, $500,000.00 for future medical expenses, $20,000.00 for loss of earnings to date, and $500,000.00 for loss of future earning capacity. The attached proof of service showed service on the Secretary of State on September 21, 2022.
On May 11, 2023, the Court dismissed the Doe defendants without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On January 22, 2024, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice. On April 19, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal.
On April 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed an application for Court judgment on Judicial Council form CIV-100, a proposed judgment on Judicial Council form JUD-100, and a two-page declaration by Plaintiff’s counsel concerning pre-judgment interest.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter default judgment against Defendant and award Plaintiff $3,537,753.08, consisting of $2,780,220.00 in special damages, $260,000.00 in general damages, and $496,933.08 in interest.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Default judgment
California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a), provides:
“[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
On November 5, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff’s application for default judgment without prejudice. The Court observed: “Plaintiff has not filed the complete default package with a declaration and exhibits in support of damages. This is the second time this defect has been identified.” (See Nov. 5, 2024 minute order, citing August 14, 2024 minute order.)
In addition to identifying defects in the application, the Court instructed Plaintiff to “resubmit the entire default package addressing the issues above.” (Nov. 5, 2024 minute order.)
Despite this instruction, on April 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed (1) an application for Court judgment on Judicial Council form CIV-100, (2) a proposed judgment on Judicial Council form JUD-100, and (3) a two-page declaration by Plaintiff’s counsel calculating pre-judgment interest purportedly owed to Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not submit a declaration describing his injuries and damages or provide any supporting exhibits.
The Court has already reviewed four prior versions of Plaintiff’s application for default judgment and identified defects in the applications. (See minute orders dated June 22, 2023, May 20, 2024, August 14, 2024, and November 5, 2024.) The Court will not review another default judgment application until Plaintiff submits a complete new application which (1) includes all of the applicable items listed in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a), including a CIV-100 form, a JUD-100 form, supporting declarations, and supporting exhibits and (2) addresses the issues identified in the Court’s prior orders.
In addition, Plaintiff’s application for default judgment may not request damages that exceed the amounts listed in the statement of damages served on Defendant.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff Dexter Fuentes’s application for default judgment against Defendant 3 Alameda Plaza LLC.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.