Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV14899, Date: 2023-06-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV14899 Hearing Date: September 11, 2023 Dept: 28
Having considered the documents submitted in support of a default judgment, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On April 20, 2021, Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Jairo Villanueva (“Defendant”) and Does 1-100 for subrogation and indebtedness.
On March 13, 2023, the clerk entered a default against Defendant.
On April 5 and July 19, 2023, the Court dismissed the Doe defendants without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On July 14, 2023, Plaintiff submitted a request for court judgment to be heard on September 11, 2023.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Plaintiff requests that the Court enter a default judgment against Defendant Jairo Villanueva and award Plaintiff $84,114.51, consisting of $83,584.51 as the demand of the complaint, $0.00 in prejudgment interest, $0.00 in attorney’s fees, and $530.00 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
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 (Cal. Practice Guide: Procedure), 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: Procedure, supra, ¶ 5:258, p. 5-70.)
The court “shall hear the evidence offered by the plaintiff, and shall render judgment in the plaintiff’s favor for that relief, not exceeding the amount stated in the complaint, in the statement required by Section 425.11, or in the statement provided for by Section 425.115, as appears by the evidence to be just. If the taking of an account, or the proof of any fact, is necessary to enable the court to give judgment or to carry the judgment into effect, the court may take the account or hear the proof . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 585, subd. (b).)
“[T]he court in its discretion may permit the use of affidavits, in lieu of personal testimony, as to all or any part of the evidence or proof required or permitted to be offered, received, or heard . . . . The facts stated in the affidavit or affidavits shall be within the personal knowledge of the affiant and shall be set forth with particularity, and each affidavit shall show affirmatively that the affiant, if sworn as a witness, can testify competently thereto.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 585, subd. (d).)
“Plaintiff is entitled to recover the ‘reasonable cost’ of past medical care necessitated by the defendant’s tortious conduct. However, the fundamental purpose of compensatory damages is to make plaintiff ‘whole’ – not to bestow a ‘profit’ or ‘windfall’ [citation omitted]. Hence, ‘reasonable’ compensation for past medical expenses may not exceed the amount actually paid or incurred – whether by the plaintiff directly or by private insurance, Medi-Cal, Medicare, plaintiff’s employer or any other ‘collateral source.’ ” (Z. Haning et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Personal Injury (Rutter 2022) ¶ 3:352, p. 3-59 (Cal. Practice Guide: PI), emphasis omitted.)
“Where plaintiff’s medical insurer negotiates an amount less than the medical provider’s ordinary rates, plaintiff may not recover the ‘negotiated amount differential.’ This is so even if the full or ordinary rates arguably represent the ‘reasonable value’ of the medical services: ‘Having never incurred the full bill, plaintiff could not recover it in damages for economic loss.’ “ (Cal. Practice Guide: PI, supra, ¶ 3:353, p. 3-59, quoting Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541, 560-561 [plaintiff not entitled to $189,979 ‘reasonable value’ of the services rendered by medical providers who accepted $59,692 under agreement with plaintiff’s insurer].)
Plaintiff’s bills from medical care providers “will not alone support the medical claim since they do not reveal whether the charges were reasonable, whether they were for reasonably necessary medical attention to an injury-related condition, and whether the amount billed was actually paid or required to be paid [citation].” (Cal. Practice Guide: PI, supra, ¶ 3:366, p. 3-66.) “Evidence that medical bills actually were paid is . . . evidence – although not dispositive – that the charges were reasonable.” (Id., ¶ 3:367, p. 3-66, emphasis omitted.)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff has submitted a completed default judgment packet with all applicable attachments. With one exception, Plaintiff has provided sufficient proof of the damages requested.
Plaintiff’s complaint seeks damages of $83,584.41. Plaintiff’s application for default judgment erroneously states that the demand of the complaint is $83,584.51. Assuming the discrepancy is a typographical error, the Court grants the application and awards Plaintiff $83,584.41.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club’s application for default judgment filed on July 14, 2023. The Court enters judgment of $83,584.41 against Defendant Jairo Villanueva.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.