Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV32154, Date: 2024-12-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV32154    Hearing Date: December 4, 2024    Dept: 28

Having considered the documents submitted in support of the request for default judgment, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On August 31, 2021, Plaintiff Emanuel Earl Brumfield (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Zhaneta Grigoryan (“Grigoryan”), Petros Markosyan (“Markosyan”), and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence. 

On February 28, 2023, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice.  On December 12, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for relief from dismissal and vacated the dismissal. 

On December 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed proofs of service showing personal service of the summons, complaint, statement of damages, and other documents on Markosyan and Grigoryan on December 12, 2023. 

On April 22, 2024, the clerk entered Markosyan’s and Grigoryan’s defaults. 

Also on April 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed a statement of damages claiming general damages “[i]n excess of” $1,000,000.00 and special damages “[i]n excess of” $1,000,000. 

On September 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed an application for entry of default judgment against Defendants. 

PARTY’S REQUEST 

Plaintiff’s CIV-100 form asks the Court to grant default judgment against Defendants and award Plaintiff $20,000.00 in general damages and $1,148.00 in costs. 

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; 

“(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)(7).) 

B.       Damages 

 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.) 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.) 

DISCUSSION 

          Plaintiff has not dismissed the Doe defendants or applied for separate judgments against them.  (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a).) 

          The cost amount listed in the attorney declaration and proposed judgment ($1,148.80) is different from the cost amount listed in the CIV-100 form ($1,148.00). 

          The CIV-100 form omits the following: 

·       The total amount requested (Section 2f)

·       Counsel’s signature after Section 3

·       Declarant’s signature after Sections 4, 5, and 6

·       Memorandum of costs information and signature (Section 7)

·       Declarant’s signature at the end of Section 8

 The Court denies the application.         

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff Emanuel Earl Brumfield’s application for default judgment against Defendants Zhaneta Grigoryan and Petros Markosyan filed on September 18, 2024. 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.