Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV29702, Date: 2023-12-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV29702 Hearing Date: December 29, 2023 Dept: 28
Having considered the documents submitted in support of a default judgment, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On August 11, 2021, Plaintiff California Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Sami Alnabahin (“Alnabahin”), Hadley Tow (“Hadley Tow”), Pacific Truck & Auto Towing, Inc. (“Pacific”), and Does 1-20 for auto negligence—subrogation. The complaint sought $33,895.79 plus costs and interest.
On October 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed proof of service showing substituted service of the summons, complaint, and other documents on Pacific and Hadley Tow on September 15, 2021 and on Alnabahin on September 23, 2021.
On January 3, 2022, the Court entered the defaults of Alnabahin, Hadley Tow, and Pacific.
On January 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed amended proofs of service.
On June 14, 2022, the Court dismissed the Doe defendants without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On December 6, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiff’s application for default judgment filed on December 5, 2022.
On August 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed a new proposed judgment on the JUD-100 form and a supplemental brief requesting default judgment. However, Plaintiff did not file a new application for default judgment on the CIV-100 form.
On September 5, 2023, the Court advised Plaintiff that a new CIV-100 form was required. On October 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed a new CIV-100 form.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Plaintiff’s CIV-100 form submitted on October 19, 2023 requests that the Court enter a default judgment against Defendants Sami Alnabahin, Hadley Tow, and Pacific Truck & Auto Towing, Inc., and award Plaintiff $34,585.99, consisting of $ 33,895.79 as the demand of the complaint and $690.20 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), 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
As noted, Plaintiff’s CIV-100 form submitted on October 19, 2023 requests that the Court enter a default judgment against Defendants Sami Alnabahin, Hadley Tow, and Pacific Truck & Auto Towing, Inc., and award Plaintiff $34,585.99, consisting of $ 33,895.79 as the demand of the complaint and $690.20 in costs.
However, the supplemental brief and proposed judgment submitted on August 8, 2023 request a judgment in the sum of $28,646.04, consisting of $27,955.79 in damages and $690.25 in costs.
The Court cannot award a default judgment based on inconsistent requests for damages and costs. Plaintiff should submit revised paperwork that resolves these inconsistencies.
CONCLUSION
The
Court DENIES without prejudice the application for default judgment filed by Plaintiff
California Automobile Insurance Company on October
19, 2023.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.