Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV32075, Date: 2023-09-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV32075 Hearing Date: September 28, 2023 Dept: 28
Having considered the documents submitted in support of a default judgment, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On August 30, 2021, Plaintiff Lucita de Leon Bayle, individually and as successor in interest to Decedent Protacio De Leon (“Plaintiff”), filed this action against Defendants Vermont Healthcare Center, Inc. (“Defendant”) and Does 1-100 for elder abuse under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15600 et seq., negligence, violation of residents’ rights under Health and Safety Code section 1430, subdivision (b), and wrongful death.
On January 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing substituted service of the summons, complaint, and other documents on Defendant’s agent for service on January 18, 2022.
On March 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed another proof of service showing substituted service of the summons, complaint, and other documents on Defendant's agent for service on March 14, 2022.
On July 19, 2022, the clerk entered default against Defendant.
On April 7, 2023, May 24, 2023, and August 11, 2023, the Court dismissed the Doe defendants without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On June 1, 2023, the Court vacated the default entered on July 19, 2022.
On July 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing substituted service of a statement of damages on Defendant’s agent for service on July 10, 2023.
On August 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default and Court judgment to be heard on September 28, 2023.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Plaintiff requests that the Court enter default judgment against Defendant Vermont Healthcare Center, Inc. and award Plaintiff $1,500,950.18, consisting of $1,500,000.00 in general damages, $0.00 in special damages, $0.00 in prejudgment interest, $0.00 in attorney’s fees, and $950.18 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.)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff submitted a request for default and default judgment to the clerk’s office on August 9, 2023. The clerk mistakenly denied the request for default, citing the default entered on July 19, 2022. As noted above, on June 1, 2023, the Court vacated the July 19, 2022 default. Plaintiff has now filed proof of service on Defendant of a statement of damages. Therefore, the Court orders that a new default is entered against Defendant.
With respect to Plaintiff’s request for default judgment, Plaintiff has submitted a declaration stating: “As a result of [Defendant’s] conduct, my family and I have been deprived of the love, affection, care, society, service, comfort, support, right to support, companionship, solace or moral support, or expectations of future support and counseling, as well as other benefits and assistance of my father and have suffered damages from my father's wrongful death in the amount of $1,500,000.00.” (Declaration of Lucita De Leon Bayle ¶ 15.) Plaintiff may request general damages to compensate her for her own pain, suffering, and loss of society and companionship. However, Plaintiff may not request general damages based on the pain, suffering, and loss of society and companionship experienced by her family members.
Plaintiff requests $56.60 in costs for “mail; case documents.” Postage and photocopying charges are not allowable as costs. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (b)(3).) Plaintiff should modify or clarify this portion of the cost request.
For the reasons stated above, the Court denies the request for default judgment.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Plaintiff Lucita De Leon Bayle’s application for default judgment filed on August 9, 2023, without prejudice.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.