Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV00383, Date: 2023-12-07 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: 21STCV00383 Hearing Date: March 15, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the documents submitted in support of a default judgment, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On January 6, 2021, Plaintiffs Irma Cardenas Lopez and Gloria Avalos Arteaga ("Plaintiffs") filed this action against Defendants Olivia Camacho Chopin (“Defendant”) and Does 1-10 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.
On January 23, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a proof of service showing substituted service on Defendant of the summons, complaint, and statement of damages on January 23, 2023.
On May 25, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an amended proof of service.
Also on May 25, 2023, the clerk entered Defendant’s default.
On February 14, 2024, the Court dismissed the Doe defendants with prejudice at Plaintiffs’ request.
Also on February 14, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a request for Court judgment to be heard on March 15, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Plaintiffs Irma Cardenas Lopez and Gloria Avalos Arteaga ask the Court to enter a default judgment against Defendant Olivia Camacho Chopin and award Plaintiffs $188,173.90, consisting of $150,000.00 in general damages, $37,688.90 in special damages, 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.) 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
In her declaration, Plaintiff Gloria Avalos Arteaga states that she has incurred “approximately $53,853.63 in medical expenses” and also requests $50,000.00 in damages for pain and suffering. However, the statement of damages attached to her declaration lists only $3,853.63 in medical expenses. The Court may not award special damages that exceed the amount specified in the statement of damages.
The JUD-100 form states that Plaintiff Gloria Avalos Arteaga is seeking judgment for $54,096.13. Because this figure includes $50,000.00 in general damages and $242.50 in costs, it seems likely that the $53,853.63 figure listed in the declaration is an error.
The CIV-100 and JUD-100 forms are not affected by the apparent error in Plaintiff Gloria Avalos Arteaga’s declaration. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have submitted a complete default judgment packet with all required attachments. The Court grants the application.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the application of Plaintiffs Irma Cardenas Lopez and Gloria Avalos Arteaga for default judgment against Defendant Olivia Camacho Chopin filed on February 14, 2024. The Court enters judgment against Defendant Olivia Camacho Chopin for $188,173.90.
Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this ruling.