Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV27510, Date: 2023-09-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV27510 Hearing Date: November 28, 2023 Dept: 28
Having considered the documents submitted in support of a default judgment, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On July 27, 2021, Plaintiff United Financial Casualty Company (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Joy Yamashiro, Tamotsu Yamashiro, and Does 1-20 for motor vehicle tort by an uninsured motorist. The complaint sought $38,333.58 plus interest.
On July 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed a statement of damages.
On August 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed proofs of service showing substituted service of the summons, complaint, statement of damages and other documents on Joy Yamashiro and Tamotsu Yamashiro on August 22, 2021.
On January 6, 2023, the clerk entered the defaults of Joy Yamashiro and Tamotsu Yamashiro.
On January 9, 2023 and November 16, 2023, the Court dismissed the Doe defendants without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On January 25, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment and set an OSC re: dismissal for failure to enter default judgment on February 27, 2023.
On February 27, 2023, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice. On September 18, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal.
On November 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default judgment against Defendants Joy Yamashiro and Tamotsu Yamashiro.
No trial date is currently set.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Plaintiff requests that the Court enter default judgment against Defendants Joy Yamashiro and Tamotsu Yamashiro and award Plaintiff $38,887.08, consisting of $38,333.58 as the demand of the complaint and $553.50 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).)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Plaintiff was required to pay uninsured motorist benefits to its insured after an accident in which Defendants were negligent but lacked automobile insurance. Plaintiff’s insured assigned to Plaintiff the insured’s right to seek reimbursement of any deductible the insured paid.
Plaintiff seeks $18,551.68 in property damages, $281.90 for loss of use, and $19,500 in uninsured motorist benefits, for a total of $38,333.58 plus $553.50 in costs. Plaintiff has submitted evidence supporting these items of damages.
The Court grants the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff United Financial Casualty Company’s application for default judgment filed on November 13, 2023. The Court enters judgment of $38,887.08 against Defendants Joy Yamashiro and Tamotsu Yamashiro.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.