Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV08347, Date: 2023-07-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV08347    Hearing Date: September 5, 2023    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND 

On March 2, 2021, Plaintiff Jose Bonifacio Maximo Hijar de Marcos (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants AMPM Cars & Trucks Enterprises Inc. (“AMPM”), Warren Buchholtz (“Buchholtz”), and Does 1 to 20 (“Does”) for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence. 

On August 3, 2022, the clerk entered default against Buchholtz and AMPM. 

On June 13, 2023, the clerk dismissed the Doe defendants without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. 

On July 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed requests for court judgment to be heard on September 5, 2023. 

PARTY’S REQUESTS 

Plaintiff requests that the Court enter a default judgment against Defendant AMPM Cars & Trucks Enterprises, Inc. and award Plaintiff $100,583.74, consisting of $0.00 in general damages, $100,000.00 in special damages, $0.00 in prejudgment interest, $0.00 in attorney’s fees, and $583.74 in costs. 

Plaintiff requests that the Court enter a default judgment against Defendant Warren Buchholtz and award Plaintiff $100,583.74, consisting of $0.00 in general damages, $100,000.00 in special damages, $0.00 in prejudgment interest, $0.00 in attorney’s fees, and $583.74 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 

“In personal injury and wrongful death actions, the complaint must not state the amount of damages sought [citations].  Therefore, before a default may be entered, plaintiff must serve defendant with a statement of ‘the nature and amount of damages being sought.’ ”  (Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 5:82, p. 5-27, citing Code Civ. Proc., § 425.11.)  “Proof of service of a [statement of damages under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.11] must accompany any request for entry of default to assure that defendants received actual notice of their potential liability.”  (Ibid.) 

Plaintiff has not filed a proof of service showing that he served a statement of damages on AMPM or Buchholtz before the clerk entered their defaults. 

The Court therefore vacates the defaults previously entered against AMPM and Buchholtz and denies Plaintiff’s requests to enter default judgment against them. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court VACATES the defaults entered against Defendants AMPM Cars & Trucks Enterprises Inc. and Warren Buchholtz on August 3, 2022. 

The Court DENIES the applications for default judgment filed by Plaintiff Jose Bonifacio Maximo Hijar de Marcos on July 17, 2023. 

The Court sets an OSC re: Status of Entry of Default on October 12, 2023, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse. 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.