Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 20STCV39224, Date: 2025-01-10 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: 20STCV39224 Hearing Date: January 10, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the documents submitted in support of a default judgment, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On October 13, 2020, Plaintiffs Christopher Dillon, Martha Dillon, Samantha Eva Dillon, a minor, and Vivian Christine Dillon, a minor, filed this action against Defendants Dale Alan Deinsteinand ("Defendant") and Does 1 through 50 for assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
On October 26, 2020, the Court appointed Christopher Dillon to serve as guardian ad litem for Plaintiffs Samantha Eva Dillon and Vivian Christine Dillon.
On January 7, 2021, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to include Defendant’s correct name, Dale Alan Deinstein.
On November 15, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an amended proof of service showing personal service of the summons, complaint, and other documents on Defendant on January 15, 2021 at the Twin Towers Correctional Facility. Plaintiffs also filed a proof of service showing personal service of a statement of damages on Defendant on August 22, 2022 at the California Men’s Colony.
Also on November 15, 2022, the clerk entered Defendant’s default.
On June 30, 2023, the Court dismissed the Doe defendants with prejudice at Plaintiffs’ request.
On October 3, 2023, the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiffs’ requests for default judgment based on deficiencies in the applications.
On January 4, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a statement of damages listing, for each Plaintiff: (1) $1,000,000.00 in general damages (pain and suffering), (2) $26,400.00 in special damages—past medical expenses, (3) $31,200.00 in special damages—future medical expenses, and (4) $2,500,000.00 in punitive damages.
Also on January 4, 2024, Plaintiffs filed requests for Court judgment (form CIV-100) for Plaintiffs Vivian Christine Dillon and Samantha Eva Dillon. Plaintiffs did not file requests for Court judgment (form CIV-100) for Plaintiffs Christopher Dillon and Martha Dillon.
On March 5, 2024, the Court found that Plaintiffs' requests for entry of default judgment were incomplete. The Court directed Plaintiffs to submit a new corrected and complete default judgment packet for each Plaintiff. The Court explained that it needed a JUD-100 form and CIV-100 form for each Plaintiff at least 10 days before the next hearing date. Noting that the case had been pending for over three years, the Court also advised Plaintiffs’ counsel that the Court might exercise its discretion to dismiss the action due to Plaintiffs’ failure to timely prosecute the matter.
On June 4, 2024, Plaintiffs filed proposed judgments (form JUD-100) and supporting declarations for each Plaintiff. Plaintiffs also filed a declaration by Plaintiff Christopher Dillon about the cost of counseling.
On June 24, 2024, the Court denied without prejudice the applications for default judgment filed by Plaintiffs Martha Dillon, Christopher Dillon, Samantha Eva Dillon, and Vivian Christine Dillon on June 4, 2024.
On August 23, 2024, Plaintiffs filed new CIV-100 (Request for Court Judgment) and JUD-100 (Judgment) forms, a new statement of damages (omitting the previous punitive damages requests), a proof of service by mail, and Christopher Dillon’s declaration about the cost of counseling. Aside from the declaration about the costs of counseling, Plaintiffs did not file new supporting declarations.
On
October 1, 2024, the Court denied the August 23, 2024 applications for default
judgment without prejudice.
On November 25, 2024, Plaintiffs filed new CIV-100 (Request for Court Judgment) and JUD-100 (Judgment) forms, a proof of service by mail, and Christopher Dillon’s declaration about the cost of counseling. Aside from the declaration about the costs of counseling, Plaintiffs did not file new supporting declarations.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter default judgments against Defendant and award each Plaintiff $1,057,709.30, consisting of $1,000,000.00 in general damages, $57,600.00 in special damages, and $109.30 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
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 (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.) 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.)
Plaintiffs have failed to submit new declarations supporting their applications for default judgment. As the Court noted in its June 24, 2024 and October 1, 2024 orders denying Plaintiffs’ previous applications for default judgment, after the Court denies an application for default judgment, the plaintiff must submit a complete new default judgment application (or “packet”), including new CIV-100 and JUD-100 forms and a new supporting declaration. The declaration by Plaintiff Christopher Dillon discussing the costs of counseling does not satisfy the requirement that each plaintiff submit a declaration supporting his or her request for damages.
In addition, Plaintiffs have not filled out Section 5 of the CIV-100 forms.
The Court denies Plaintiffs’ applications for entry of default judgment.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES without prejudice the applications for default judgment filed by Plaintiffs Christopher Dillon, Martha Dillon, Samantha Eva Dillon, a minor, and Vivian Christine Dillon, a minor, on November 25, 2024.
Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this ruling.