Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 20STCV43635, Date: 2023-12-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV43635    Hearing Date: March 28, 2024    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND 

On November 13, 2020, Plaintiff Eugene Taulbee (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Veteran’s Towing & Transport, Inc. (“Defendant”) and Does 1-25 for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence. 

On February 16, 2021, the Court entered Defendant’s default. 

On April 22, 2022, the Court dismissed the Doe defendants without prejudice. 

On June 17, 2022, Plaintiff amended the complaint to change Defendant’s name from Veteran’s Towing & Transport, Inc., which was incorrect, to Defendant’s true name, Veterans Towing, LLC. 

On August 3, 2022, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice. On September 8, 2022, and February 15, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal. 

On February 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed proofs of service showing substituted service on Defendant of (1) the summons, complaint, and other documents on October 4, 2022 and (2) a statement of damages on December 3, 2022. 

On February 10, 2023, the clerk entered Defendant’s default. 

On February 22, 2024, Plaintiff submitted a request for Court judgment to be heard on March 28, 2024. 

No trial date is currently scheduled. 

PARTY’S REQUEST 

Plaintiff asks the Court to enter a default judgment against Defendant Veterans Towing, LLC and award Plaintiff $78,967.04, consisting of $8,370.82 in special damages, $70,000.00 in general damages, and $596.22 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, 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 

Plaintiff has not provided a copy of the statement of damages served on Defendant on December 3, 2022.  The Court must ensure that the damages sought in the default judgment application do not exceed the amounts listed in the statement of damages.  The Court continues the hearing and orders Plaintiff to submit a supplemental declaration providing a copy of the statement of damages served on Defendant on December 3, 2022. 

Plaintiff should also provide a new Declaration of Mailing for the CIV-100 form.  The current Declaration of Mailing states that Plaintiff mailed the form to “Bryce Doe” on October 4, 2022 and to “Juan Doe” on December 3, 2022.  Plaintiff should ensure that he is serving the appropriate person or persons and list the correct date(s) of service. 

The JUD-100 form states that the total amount requested is “78,967.”  The Court will assume that the total amount requested is $78,967.04 (the combined amount of the damages and costs listed). 

CONCLUSION 

The Court CONTINUES the hearing on Plaintiff Eugene Taulbee’s application for default judgment to April 29, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse. 

The Court orders Plaintiff Eugene Taulbee to submit a supplemental declaration by April 23, 2024 providing (1) a copy of the statement of damages served on Defendant Veterans Towing, LLC on December 3, 2022, and (2) a new Declaration of Mailing for the CIV-100 form. 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.