Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV34276, Date: 2024-06-14 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org.  Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line.  In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.     If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.

                                       Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.  This does not excuse a moving party's need to do one of the following: appear; submit; or take a matter off calendar by canceling the motion in the case reservation system before issuance of the tentative ruling if the matter moving party does not intend to proceed.    
 
            If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.  

Case Number: 21STCV34276    Hearing Date: June 14, 2024    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND 

On September 16, 2021, Plaintiff Mohammad Tehrani (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants City of Los Angeles (“City”), Derek Anthony Dale (“Dale”), and Doe 1-100 for general negligence, intentional tort, and civil rights violation.  Plaintiff did not have counsel. 

The complaint alleged the following: On November 7, 2020, at 1545 Brockton Avenue, #18, in Los Angeles, Defendants attacked Plaintiff and violated his civil rights.  Defendants “charged toward Plaintiff, and threatened to strike Plaintiff with their fists.”  Defendants “intended to cause and did cause Plaintiff to suffer the apprehension of a harmful contact.”  Defendants “did in fact strike Plaintiff on his person” and “intended to cause and did cause a harmful contact with Plaintiff’s person.”

On February 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney form substituting Alberto E. Algaze (“Algaze”) into the case to represent him.

On February 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing personal service of the summons, complaint, and other documents on Dale on November 11, 2021.  This proof of service did not mention a statement of damages.

Also on February 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed a statement of damages dated February 28, 2023 which requested $10 million in general damages.  The attached proof of service showed service by facsimile on the “facsimile telephone number” of an unnamed recipient. 

On March 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney form replacing Algaze with Plaintiff as a self-represented litigant. 

On April 14, 2023, the City filed an answer. 

On May 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney form substituting Grenville Pridham of Severo, PLC, into the case to represent him. 

On August 9, 2023 and September 19, 2023, Plaintiff’s former attorney Algaze filed amended proofs of service showing personal service of the summons, complaint, statement of damages, and other documents on Dale on November 11, 2021. 

On September 19, 2023, the clerk entered Dale’s default. 

On February 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney form substituting Mario Tafur as Plaintiff’s attorney in place of Grenville Pridham. 

Also on February 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed a request for default judgment on form CIV-100 asking the Court to award over $25 million in damages against Dale.  On February 14, 2024, Plaintiff submitted a JUD-100 proposed judgment form.  On March 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed a declaration supporting his request for default judgment. 

On March 15, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel asked the Court for additional time to apply for separate judgment against the non-defaulted defendants.  (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a)(7).)  The Court continued the hearing to June 14, 2024. 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 

Plaintiff asks the Court to enter a default judgment against Defendant Derek Anthony Dale and award Plaintiff $25,203,755.00, consisting of $10,000,000.00 as the “demand of the complaint,” $15,000,000.00 in punitive damages, $10,000,000.00 in general damages, $203,270.00 in attorney’s fees, and $485.00 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.) 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 

“If defendant has not appeared in the action, the [Code of Civil Procedure section 425.11] statement of damages must be served ‘in the same manner as a summons’ . . . .”  (Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 5:91, p. 5-33, quoting Code Civ. Proc., § 425.11, subd. (d)(1).)  A summons may be served by personal service (id., ¶ 4:367, p. 4-65), proper “substitute service” (id., ¶ 4:370, p. 4-66), service by mail with acknowledgement of receipt (id., ¶ 4:371, p. 4-65), or publication (id., ¶ 4:367, p. 4-65). 

The proof of service attached to the statement of damages filed on February 28, 2023, purported to show service by facsimile on an unnamed recipient.  The proof of service did not list Dale’s name.  It listed only a “facsimile telephone number.”  The proof of service attached to the statement of damages did not satisfy statutory requirements and does not establish that Plaintiff properly served the statement of damages on Dale before the clerk entered Dale’s default. 

On August 9, 2023 and September 19, 2023, Plaintiff’s former attorney Algaze filed amended proofs of service showing personal service of a statement of damages (and other documents) on Dale on November 11, 2021.  Algaze, however, did not have authority to file documents on Plaintiff’s behalf because Plaintiff had filed a substitution of attorney form on March 6, 2023 removing Algaze as Plaintiff’s counsel.  Moreover, the only statement of damages in the record is dated February 28, 2023, over a year after Algaze purportedly served it on Dale.  In addition, when Plaintiff filed the original version of the proof of service on February 28, 2023, it did not mention a statement of damages.  The Court finds that the August 9 and September 19, 2023 proofs of service do not establish that Plaintiff properly served a statement of damages on Dale before the clerk entered Dale’s default. 

Because the record does not show that Plaintiff properly served a statement of damages on Dale before the clerk entered Dale’s default, the Court vacates the default and denies Plaintiff’s application for entry of default judgment. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court VACATES the default of Defendant Derek Anthony Dale entered on September 19, 2023. 

The Court DENIES Plaintiff Mohammad Tehrani’s application for entry of default judgment. 

The Court sets an OSC re: Status of Entry of Default on August 2, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse. 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.