Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 20STCV47984, Date: 2023-09-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV47984 Hearing Date: January 16, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the documents submitted in support of a default judgment, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On December 15, 2020, Plaintiff Jesus Lazcano (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Candido Soto (“Defendant”) and Does 1-10 for motor vehicle negligence.
On April 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing substituted service on Defendant of the summons, complaint, statement of damages and other documents on April 10, 2021.
On May 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a statement of damages with a proof of service showing substituted service on Defendant on April 10, 2021.
On July 8, 2022, the clerk entered Defendant’s default.
On January 31, 2023, the Court identified defects in the statement of damages filed on May 19, 2022 and found that Plaintiff was required to serve a new statement of damage so that default and default judgment could be entered.
On March 29, 2023 and May 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed a statement of damages showing proof of service by mail on Defendant on March 29, 2023.
On September 6, 2023, the Court vacated the default and denied Plaintiff’s request for default judgment.
On September 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing personal service on Defendant of a statement of damages on September 14, 2023.
On October 18, 2023, the clerk entered Defendant’s default.
On November 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed an application for default judgment.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Plaintiff requests that the Court enter default judgment against Defendant Candido Soto and award Plaintiff $122,430.91, consisting of $21,849.46 in special damages, $100,000.00 in general damages, and $581.45 in costs.
LEGAL STANDARD
“[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).)
“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
Plaintiff
has submitted a completed default judgment packet with all applicable
attachments and supporting evidence. The
Court grants the request.
CONCLUSION
The
Court GRANTS Plaintiff Jesus Lazcano’s application for default judgment filed
on November 20, 2023. The Court enters
judgment of $122,430.91 against Defendant Candido
Soto.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.