Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV19681, Date: 2023-10-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV19681    Hearing Date: January 17, 2024    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND 

On May 25, 2021, Plaintiff Kenneth Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Luis Angel Rivera Hernandez and Does 1-100 for motor vehicle negligence. 

On September 28, 2021, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Rivera Alberto Hernandez as Doe 1. 

On June 23, 2022 and August 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing substituted service on Alberto Rivera Hernandez of the summons, complaint, statement of damages, and other documents on October 16, 2021. 

On August 19, 2022, the clerk entered the default of “Alberto Rivera Hernandez.” 

On November 22, 2022, the Court dismissed Does 1-100 without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. 

On February 6, 2023, the Court dismissed Defendant Luis Angel Rivera Hernandez without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. 

On April 21, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal of Defendant Rivera Alberto Hernandez (Doe 1). 

On October 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a declaration by Loretta Miller, the person who prepared the proof of service for the summons and complaint served on Defendant Rivera Alberto Hernandez.  Miller stated that “the defendant’s name “was erroneously typed on the proof of service as Alberto Rivera Hernandez even though he was properly served under the correct name, as Rivera Alberto Hernandez, Doe 1.” 

On November 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default judgment against Defendant Rivera Alberto Hernandez. 

PARTY’S REQUEST 

Plaintiff requests that the Court enter default judgment against Defendant Rivera Alberto Hernandez and award Plaintiff $17,341.33, consisting of $3,865.00 in special damages, $10,000.00 in general damages, and $3,476.33 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 

Before the Court can enter a default judgment against a defendant, the defendant must be in default.  (See Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 5:115, p. 5-38 [“Entry of default is the first step toward a default judgment”].)  Here, the clerk entered the default of “Alberto Rivera Hernandez.”  However, Plaintiff is asking the Court to enter default judgment against Rivera Alberto Hernandez.  The Court cannot grant the request because Rivera Alberto Hernandez’s default has not been entered. 

Plaintiff requests $2,484.35 in costs for “process server’s fees.”  But $2,484.35 is the amount Plaintiff’s counsel paid Specialized Investigation to “research and locate Defendant Rivera Alberto Hernandez” and to hire a process server to serve him.  (See Mandell Dec. & Account Quick Report attachment.)  Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (b)(2), investigation expenses in preparing the case for trial are not recoverable costs.  If Plaintiff seeks recovery of the costs paid to Specialized Investigation for its work in locating Defendant, Plaintiff should provide legal support for the request. 

In addition, Plaintiff should specify the costs included in the request for $92.92 in “other” costs. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES Plaintiff Kenneth Rodriguez’s application for default judgment filed on November 2, 2023 without prejudice. 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.