Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV08396, Date: 2025-04-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV08396 Hearing Date: April 3, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the documents submitted in support of a default judgment, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On March 3, 2021, Plaintiff Deander Edwards (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Ralph’s Grocery Company, The Kroger Co., American Guard Services, Inc., and Does 1-50 for assault, negligence, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. On July 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed a notice of errata stating the correct spelling of Plaintiff’s first name is Deandre.
On August 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Defendants Ralph’s Grocery Company, The Kroger Co., American Guard Services (“AGS”), Inc., Doe 1, and Does 2-50 for premises liability, assault, battery, negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence.
On October 4, 2021, Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company dba Ralphs (erroneously sued as “Ralphs Grocery Company” and “The Kroger Co.”) (“Ralphs”) filed an answer.
On April 8, 2022, the Court dismissed Defendants Ralph’s Grocery Company and The Kroger Co. without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. On July 12, 2024, the Court dismissed Defendants Ralph’s Grocery Company and The Kroger Co. with prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On July 27, 2022, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Seven Safe Services, Inc. (“Defendant”) as Doe 1.
On December 28, 2022, AGS filed an answer to the first amended complaint. On October 17, 2023, AGS filed a notice of settlement. On August 6, 2024, the Court dismissed AGS with prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On
April 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing substituted service
of the summons, complaint, and other documents on Defendant on March 11,
2024. On May 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed a
proof of service showing substituted service of the summons, first amended
complaint, and statement of damages on Defendant on May 18, 2024.
On January 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed an application for default judgment.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter a default judgment against Defendant and award Plaintiff $4,001,140.56, consisting of $4,000,000.00 in general damages and $1,140.56 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;
“(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.) 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 not dismissed or applied for a separate judgment against the Doe defendants. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a)(7).)
Plaintiff has submitted a proof of service showing service on Defendant of a statement of damages. However, Plaintiff has not submitted a copy of the statement of damages to the Court. The Court must review the statement of damages to make sure the Court does not award damages that exceed the amounts listed in the statement of damages.
In Plaintiff’s CIV-100 form, Melissa Fowler states under penalty of perjury that items 4, 5, 6, and 8 of the CIV-100 form are true and correct. However, Plaintiff has not explained to the Court who Melissa Fowler is or why she is competent to make these statements.
Plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence to support his request for $4,000,000.00 in general damages.
The Court denies the application.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff Deandre Edwards’ application for default judgment against Defendant Seven Safe Services, Inc. filed on January 6, 2025.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.