Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV19681, Date: 2024-12-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV19681 Hearing Date: December 5, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the documents submitted in support of the request for 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 tort.
On September 28, 2021, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Rivera Alberto Hernandez as Doe 1.
On June 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing substituted service on Alberto Rivera Hernandez of the summons, complaint, statement of damages re Doe 1, and other documents on October 16, 2021.
On 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 19, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request for default judgment. The Court observed: “[T]he September 28, 2021 Doe amendment named Defendant Rivera Alberto Hernandez as Doe 1. However, the proof of substituted service filed on June 23, 2022 and August 17, 2022, showing service of the summons, complaint, statement of damages, and other documents stated the service was made on Alberto Rivera Hernandez. Similarly, the August 19, 2023 request for entry of default listed Defendant Alberto Rivera Hernandez. Plaintiff has not established that Defendant Rivera Alberto Hernandez (Doe 1) is in default.”
On February 16, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to amend the complaint to substitute the defendant’s true name, Alberto Rivera Hernandez, in place of the incorrect name, Rivera Alberto Hernandez/Doe 1.
On June 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed an application for publication. The application asserted that Plaintiff had not been able to serve the summons and complaint on Alberto Rivera Hernandez. On July 26, 2024, the Court granted the application.
On September 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed a proof of service by publication of the summons, complaint, and statement of damages on Alberto Rivera Hernandez. Publication took place once a week from August 3, 2024 to August 24, 2024. The publication included a statement of damages listing general damages of $250,000.00, medical expenses "in excess of" $10,615.00, and future medical expenses "in excess of" $10,000.00.
On October 8, 2024, the clerk entered Defendant Alberto Rivera Hernandez’s default.
On November 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed an application for default judgment against Defendant Alberto Rivera Hernandez (“Defendant”).
PARTY’S REQUEST
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter a default judgment
against Defendant and award Plaintiff $15,000.00, consisting of $3,865.00 in
special damages and $11,135.00 in general damages.
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 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].)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff has submitted a complete default judgment application with all required information. The Court grants the application and awards Plaintiff $15,000.00.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.