Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV35500, Date: 2025-04-28 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: 21STCV35500 Hearing Date: April 28, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the documents submitted in support of applications for 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. The complaint demanded $80,000.00.
On January 24, 2022, the clerk entered the defaults of Luis and Mayo. On April 19, 2023, the clerk entered Diaz’s default.
On November 7, 2023, the Court (1) vacated service on Diaz of the complaint, summons, and statement of damages, vacated the April 19, 2023 entry of default against Diaz, and denied Plaintiff’s request for default judgment against Diaz, (2) vacated the default entered against Mayo on January 24, 2022, and denied Plaintiff’s request for default judgment against Mayo, and (3) vacated the default entered against Luis on January 24, 2022, and denied Plaintiff’s request for default judgment against Luis.
On August 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed proofs of service showing personal service of the summons, complaint, statements of damages, and other documents on Diaz, Mayo, and Luis on February 20, 2024. (Plaintiff's numerous statements of damages each stated that Plaintiff sought $80,000.00 in general damages for pain, suffering, and inconvenience, $60,000.00 in special damages for loss of earnings, $20,000.00 in special damages for property damage, and punitive damages in an unspecified amount.)
Also on August 19, 2024, the clerk entered the defaults of Diaz, Mayo, and Luis.
On August 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed applications for entry of default judgment against Diaz, Mayo, and Luis using an outdated version of Judicial Council form CIV-100. However, Plaintiff did not file supporting declarations or other admissible evidence supporting the judgments requested and did not file proposed judgments. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a).) On November 18, 2024, the Court continued the matter to February 11, 2025 to give Plaintiff time to submit complete default judgment applications.
On November 25, 2024, Plaintiff again filed applications for entry of default judgment against Diaz, Mayo, and Luis using an outdated version of Judicial Council form CIV-100.
The Court continued the hearing to April 28, 2025.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter a default judgment against Diaz, Mayo, and Luis and award Plaintiff $80,000.00 as the demand of the complaint, consisting of $60,000.00 in special damages and $20,000.00 in general damages.
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).)
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 2024) ¶ 5:213.1, p. 5-56, 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
A. The complaint
Plaintiff’s complaint includes the following allegations:
On September 13, 2019, Diaz and Luis occupied Mayo’s uninsured motor vehicle. Defendants failed to operate the vehicle in a safe and constructive manner and crashed it into La Elegida Market, a mini market where Plaintiff was employed. (Plaintiff does business under the fictitious name La Elegida Market.) The incident “caused injury to the Plaintiff’s basic means of survival and support, for over 3 months, in addition to the out of pocket cost of repair and restoration of products for the normal course of business as usual.”
Plaintiff’s income was $20,000.00 per month. “Plaintiff has suffered 3 months of loss of income due to the destruction of the business building LA ELEGIDA MARKET that equated 60,000 in addition to the cost of products.”
The complaint prays for $80,000.00 in damages.
B. Plaintiff’s default judgment applications
As noted, Plaintiff’s default judgment applications ask the Court to enter a default judgment against Diaz, Mayo, and Luis and award Plaintiff $80,000.00 as the demand of the complaint, consisting of $60,000.00 in special damages and $20,000.00 in general damages.
In her supporting declaration, however, Plaintiff states that, as a result of the accident, she “was deprived of work for 3 months of pay at 20,000.00 per month, totaling 60,000.00” and “20,000.00 of goods and property of the store was totally destroyed.” Plaintiff’s declaration does not address pain, suffering, or any other basis for an award of general damages. Indeed, as Plaintiff has not alleged or shown that she suffered personal injuries in the accident, it is unclear if Plaintiff is entitled to recover general damages.
In addition, Plaintiff has not dismissed or applied for a separate judgment against the Doe defendants. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a) [party requesting default judgment must submit “[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”].) Plaintiff should either dismiss or apply for a separate judgment against the Doe defendants before submitting new applications for default judgment against Diaz, Mayo, and Luis.
Plaintiff also has not filled out Item 4 on the CIV-100 forms, which asks whether a legal document assistant gave advice or assistance for compensation with the CIV-100 form. If a legal document assistant provided advice or assistance for compensation, Plaintiff must provide the additional information requested in Item 4.
In Item 5(c) of the CIV-100 forms, Plaintiff has checked the box stating that the action is “on an obligation for goods, services, loans, or extensions of credit subject to Code Civ. Proc., § 395(b).” Plaintiff should consider whether this statement is correct.
If Plaintiff files new applications for default judgment, Plaintiff should use the most recent versions of the Judicial Council’s CIV-100 and JUD-100 forms.
The Court denies Plaintiff’s applications for default judgment without prejudice.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff Bibiana Granados’s applications for default judgment against Defendants Jairo Diaz, Minerva Luis Mayo, and Jennifer Luis filed on November 25, 2024.
Plaintiff
is ordered to give notice of this ruling.