Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV35500, Date: 2023-11-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV35500 Hearing Date: November 7, 2023 Dept: 28
Having considered the documents submitted in support of a default judgment, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On September 27, 2021, Plaintiff Bibiana Granados (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Jairo Diaz (“Diaz”), Minerva Luis Mayo (“Mayo”), Jennifer Luis (“Luis”), and Does 1-4 for general negligence, products liability and premises liability.
On January 24, 2022, the clerk entered default against Luis and Mayo. On April 19, 2023, the clerk entered default against Diaz.
On September 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a request for Court judgment against Luis, Mayo, and Diaz to be heard on October 11, 2023. The Court continued the hearing to November 7, 2023.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Plaintiff requests that the Court enter default judgments against Defendants Jennifer Luis, Minerva Luis Mayo, and Jairo Diaz and award Plaintiff $80,000.00 consisting of $60,000.00 in special damages, $20,000.00 in general damages, $0.00 in prejudgment interest, $0.00 in attorney’s fees, and $0.00 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: 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
The clerk entered Defendants’ defaults despite improper service of the statements of damages and, with respect to Diaz, improper service of the summons and complaint.
Plaintiff properly served the summons and complaint on Mayo and Luis by having the Sheriff’s Department personally serve these documents on Mayo and Luis on November 2, 2021.
Plaintiff also improperly served statements of damages on Mayo and Luis (and Diaz) by signing the proofs of service herself despite the statement on the proofs of service that the person making the service may not be a party to the case. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a [person making the service must verify that he or she is not “a party to the cause”].) As a result, the Court vacates the defaults entered against Mayo and Luis and denies Plaintiff’s motion to enter default judgment against them.
CONCLUSION
The Court VACATES service on Defendant Jairo Diaz of the complaint, summons, and statement of damages, VACATES the April 19, 2023 entry of default against Defendant Jairo Diaz, and DENIES Plaintiff Bibiana Grandados’s request for default judgment against Defendant Jairo Diaz.
The Court VACATES the default entered against Defendant Minerva Luis Mayo on January 24, 2022, and DENIES Plaintiff Bibiana Grandados’s request for default judgment against Defendant Minerva Luis Mayo.
The Court VACATES the default entered against Defendant Jennifer Luis on January 24, 2022, and DENIES Plaintiff Bibiana Grandados’s request for default judgment against Defendant Jennifer Luis.
The Court sets an OSC re: Plaintiff’s filing of proof of service of the summons and complaint on Defendant Jairo Diaz on December 7, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. at the Spring Street Courthouse.
The Court sets an OSC re: entry of default against Defendants Minerva Luis Mayo and Jennifer Luis on December 7, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. at the Spring Street Courthouse.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.