Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV01461, Date: 2023-08-30 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: 21STCV01461 Hearing Date: March 22, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the documents submitted in support of a default judgment, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On January 13, 2021, Plaintiff Navid Nourmand (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants SPR Trucking, Inc. (“SPR Trucking”), Rafael Maldonado (“Maldonado”), and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.
On February 4, 2021, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing personal service of the summons, complaint, and other documents on a person authorized to accept service of process for SPR Trucking on January 20, 2021.
On September 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing personal service of a statement of damages on a person authorized to accept service of process for SPR Trucking on September 12, 2022.
On October 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing substituted service on Maldonado of the summons, complaint, statement of damages, and other documents on October 4, 2022. On October 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed another proof of service.
On October 17, 2022, the clerk entered SPR Trucking’s default. On November 15, 2022, the clerk entered Maldonado’s default.
On April 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed statements of damages sought against SPR Trucking and Maldonado. The statements of damages listed $6,685.00 in special damages for medical expenses to date, $50,000.00 in general damages for pain, suffering, and inconvenience, and $50,000.00 in general damages for emotional distress.
On January 17, 2024, the Court dismissed the Doe defendants without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On March 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed a request for Court judgment to be heard on March 22, 2024.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter a default judgment against Defendants Rafael Maldonado and SPR Trucking, Inc., and award Plaintiff $107,696.07, consisting of $6,685.00 in special damages, $100,000.00 in general damages, and $1,011.07 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 (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.)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s counsel states that Plaintiff is requesting $100,000.00 in general damages “based on Plaintiff’s ongoing pain, suffering and inconvenience stemming from Plaintiff’s unresolved injuries and need for future medical care (see Nourmand Declaration) . . . .” (Hakopian Dec. ¶ 12.)
Plaintiff states that (1) chiropractor Yelena Orel D.C., recommended that Plaintiff purchase a customized bed costing between $3,999.00 and $8,999.00 (Plaintiff’s Dec. ¶ 4), (2) Plaintiff “need[s] further diagnostic studies (MRI valued at $5,000), chiropractic treatments (two courses of treatments valued at $12,000), additional physical therapy treatments (one course of treatments valued at $6,000), epidural injections ($30,000 for one course of treatment) and a neck surgery (estimated cost of $70,000-140,000)” (Plaintiff’s Dec. ¶ 6), and (3) the estimated cost of his future medical care is at least $100,000.00. (Plaintiff’s Dec. ¶ 6.)
Based on these declarations, it is unclear if future medical expenses are included in Plaintiff’s request for $100,000.00 in general damages. Plaintiff did not list future medical expenses (which are special damages) in his statements of damages. Therefore, if Plaintiff is seeking future medical expenses as part of his request for $100,000.00 in general damages, Plaintiff will need to serve revised statements of damages on Defendants and obtain new defaults before the Court can enter default judgment.
Plaintiff should clarify the basis for his request for $100,000.00 in general damages. If necessary, Plaintiff should serve new statements of damages and obtain new defaults before submitting a new application for default judgment.
The
Court denies the application without prejudice.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Plaintiff Navid Nourmand’s application for default judgment filed on March 7, 2024 without prejudice.
The Court sets an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Failure to Resubmit Default Judgment Packet on May 21, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.