Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV01461, Date: 2024-12-09 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: December 9, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the documents submitted in support of the request for 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 April 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed amended statements of damages sought against Maldonado and SPR Trucking. Plaintiff filed proofs of service showing service of the amended statements of damages on Maldonado and SPR Trucking on April 23, 2024 and April 25, 2024. The amended statements of damages listed general damages of $25,000.00 (consisting of $15,000.00 for pain, suffering, and inconvenience and $10,000.00 for emotional distress) and special damages of $75,000.00 (consisting of $6,685.00 for past medical expenses and $68,315.00 for future medical expenses).
On May 21, 2024, the Court vacated the defaults of Maldonado and SPR Trucking.
On July 1, 2024, the clerk re-entered the defaults of Maldonado and SPR Trucking.
On November 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed an application for default judgment against Maldonado and SPR Trucking.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter a default judgment
against SPR Trucking and Maldonado and award Plaintiff $101,011.07, consisting
of $75,000.00 in special damages (past medical expenses of $6,685.00 and future
medical expenses of $68,315.00), $25,000.00 in general damages, and $1,011.07
in costs.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Default judgment
California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a), provides:
“[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;
“(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)(7).)
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 2024) ¶ 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.)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff has submitted a complete default judgment application with all required information. The Court grants the application and awards Plaintiff $101,011.07.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Navid Nourmand’s application for default judgment against Defendants SPR Trucking, Inc. and Rafael Maldonado filed on November 14, 2024. The Court awards Plaintiff Navid Nourmand $101,011.07 against Defendants SPR Trucking, Inc. and Rafael Maldonado, jointly and severally.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.