Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 20STCV37437, Date: 2023-08-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV37437 Hearing Date: February 29, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the documents submitted in support of a default judgment, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On September 30, 2020, Plaintiff Antonio Valencia (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Christian Giovanni Torres (“Torres”), Maria Ruiz Uribe (“Uribe”), and Does 1-10 for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.
On December 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed a proof of personal service on Torres of the summons and complaint.
On May 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed a statement of damages sought against Torres, including a proof of personal service on Torres.
On June 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed an amended proof of personal service on Torres of the summons and complaint.
Also on June 27, 2022, the Court dismissed Uribe with prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On June 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed another amended proof of personal service on Torres of the summons and complaint.
Also on June 29, 2022, the clerk entered Torres’s default.
On December 11, 2023, the Court dismissed the Doe defendants with prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On January 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed a request for Court judgment against Torres to be heard on February 29, 2024.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Plaintiff Antonio Valencia asks the Court to enter default judgment against Defendant Christian Giovanni Torres and award Plaintiff $1,000,485.00, consisting of $1,000,000.00 in general damages, $0.00 in special damages, $0.00 in prejudgment interest, $0.00 in attorney’s fees, and $485.00 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
“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 Antonio Valencia’s application for default judgment against Defendant Christian Giovanni Torres filed on January 26, 2024. The Court awards Plaintiff Antonio Valencia $1,000,485.00.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.