Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV19919, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV19919 Hearing Date: August 4, 2023 Dept: 28
Having considered the documents submitted in support of a default judgment, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On May 26, 2021, Plaintiff John Prunckle (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Baudilio Revolorio Hernandez (“Hernandez”) and First Choice Painting & Construction Management, Inc. (“First Choice”) for motor vehicle.
On November 10, 2022, First Choice filed an answer.
On January 11, 2023, the clerk entered default against Hernandez. On July 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Request for Court Judgment against Hernandez to be heard on August 4, 2023.
Trial is currently scheduled for January 23, 2024.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Plaintiff requests that the Court enter default judgment against Defendant Baudilio Revolorio Hernandez and award Plaintiff $5,611,325.45, consisting of $2,610,016.76 in special damages, $3,000,000.00 in general damages, $0.00 in prejudgment interest, $0.00 in attorney’s fees, and $1,308.69 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).)
DISCUSSION
A. Past pain and suffering: Plaintiff requests $960,000
Plaintiff's counsel asserts: “It has been 4 years and 2 days since the subject incident occurred on July 26, 2023. For the purposes of this Default Judgment, we have calculated Plaintiff’s past pain, suffering, inconvenience, and emotional distress at $960,000, which comes out to $20,000 a month over the past 48 months since the subject incident.” (Declaration of Ryan J. Jones (Jones Dec.) ¶ 10.)
B. Future pain and suffering: Plaintiff requests $2,040,000
Plaintiff's counsel asserts: “Plaintiff’s date of birth is May 15, 1986, which currently makes him 37-year-old. Pursuant to CACI’s Life Expectancy Table-Male, his current life expectancy is that he will live an additional 41.5 years from now. For the purposes of this Default Judgment, we have calculated Plaintiff’s future pain, suffering, inconvenience, and emotional distress at $2,040,000, which comes out to $4,096.39 a month over the next 498 months (or 41.5 years) for the period of Plaintiff’s remaining life expectancy.” (Jones Dec. ¶ 11.)
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s declaration. Although the declaration supports an award of damages for future pain and suffering, the declaration does not support the amount requested. Plaintiff’s paperwork does not explain the source of the $4,096.39 per month figure or explain why the same figure should be used for the remaining years of Plaintiff’s life.
C. Past lost earnings: Plaintiff requests $100,000
Plaintiff's counsel asserts: “For the purposes of this Default Judgment, Plaintiff’s past [loss] of earnings has been calculated at approximately $100,000. This is calculated based on him losing a 10 month period of time where he could have work[ed], had he not been injured in the subject incident. His [lost earnings claim] is based on an $85,000 salary he obtained at his next job. The $100,000 amount also factors in the loss of benefits due to the subject incident.” (Jones Dec. ¶ 12.)
In his declaration, Plaintiff states he left his job in April 2019 because his employer moved its facilities out of state. As a result, he was not working at the time of the accident. Before the accident, he had planned to return to work in September 2019. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, Plaintiff did not return to the work force until July 2020. Therefore, he lost the opportunity to work for a period of 10 months. Plaintiff obtained a job in July 2020 at Performance Machine LLC making a base salary of $85,000 per year. (Declaration of John Prunckle (Prunckle Dec.) ¶ 19.)
The Court finds the claim for $100,000 in past earnings is supported by the evidence.
D. Loss of future earning capacity: Plaintiff requests “approximately $2,000,000”
Plaintiff's counsel asserts: “For the purposes of this Default Judgment, Plaintiff’s loss of future earning capacity has been calculated at approximately $2,000,000. This is based on if the Plaintiff is unable to work at all, or has to drastically reduce the amount of his work over the rest of his life. This would be a loss of $4,016.06 per month over the next 498 months (or 41.5 years) for the period of Plaintiff’s remaining life expectancy.” (Jones Dec. ¶ 13.)
In his declaration, Plaintiff states: “I have a diminished earning capacity because I cannot function as effectively as I had prior to the collision. I have permanent physical disabilities from my injuries.” (Prunckle Dec. ¶ 20.)
The evidence presented does not support an award of $2,000,000 for loss of future earning capacity. For example, Plaintiff has not explained how his injuries reduce his earning capacity beyond saying he cannot function as effectively as he did before the accident. In addition, Plaintiff does not explain the source of the $4,016.06 figure or account for retirement.
E. Past medical expenses: Plaintiff requests $10,016.76
Plaintiff's counsel asserts: “For the purposes of this Default Judgment, Plaintiff’s medical expenses have been calculated at $10,016.76, based on the medical bills provided with Plaintiff’s declaration filed concurrently with this declaration.” (Jones Dec. ¶ 14.)
The Court finds the evidence presented supports this request.
E. Future medical expenses: Plaintiff requests “approximately $500,000”
Plaintiff's counsel asserts: “For the purposes of this Default Judgment, Plaintiff’s future medical expenses have been calculated at approximately $500,000. This would be an expense of $1,004.02 per month averaged over the next 498 months (or 41.5 years) for the period of Plaintiff’s remaining life expectancy.” (Jones Dec. ¶ 14.)
In his declaration, Plaintiff states: “I have received substantial medical treatment as a result of the subject incident, and my doctors have informed me that I will need future treatment. I have also incurred past medical expenses and will continue to incur medical expenses in the future.” (Prunckle Dec. ¶ 4.)
The evidence presented does not support the request for $500,000 in future medical expenses.
For the reasons stated above, the Court denies the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES the application for default judgment filed on July 28, 2023 without prejudice.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.