Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV38112, Date: 2024-08-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV38112 Hearing Date: August 7, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the documents submitted in support of the request for default judgment, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On October 15, 2021, Plaintiffs Ashley Romero, as successor-in-interest for Estate of Mary Helen Hernandez, Ashley Romero, Frank Guzman, Loretta Barrios, and Phillip Barrios filed this action against Defendants Care Transportation Services, LLC (“Care Transportation”), Doe Driver, Doe Supervisor, and Does 1-50 for negligence, negligent entrustment, wrongful death, survivorship action, and negligent hiring/retention/supervision/training.
On November 29, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a proof of service showing personal service of the summons, complaint, and other documents on Care Transportation’s agent for service of process on November 18, 2021.
On March 29, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a proof of service showing personal service of statements of damages of Plaintiffs Ashley Romero, Frank Guzman, Loretta Barrios, and Phillip Barrios on Care Transportation’s agent for service of process on June 13, 2022.
On June 22, 2023, Plaintiffs filed Plaintiff Frank Guzman’s statement of damages sought against Care Transportation listing $3 million in pain and suffering damages, $1 million in emotional distress damages, $3 million in damages for loss of society and companionship, $25,000.00 in funeral expenses, $1 million in future contributions, and $5 million in punitive damages. The attached proof of service showed personal service of the statement of damages to Care Transportation on June 8, 2023.
On June 22, 2023, Plaintiffs filed Plaintiff Phillip Barrios’s statement of damages sought against Care Transportation listing $3 million in pain and suffering damages, $1 million in emotional distress damages, $3 million in damages for loss of society and companionship, $1 million in damages for loss of future contributions, and $5 million in punitive damages. The attached proof of service showed personal service of the statement of damages to Care Transportation on June 8, 2023.
On June 22, 2023, Plaintiffs filed Plaintiff Loretta Barrios’s statement of damages sought against Care Transportation listing $3 million in pain and suffering damages, $1 million in emotional distress damages, $3 million in damages for loss of society and companionship, $1 million in damages for loss of future contributions, and $5 million in punitive damages. The attached proof of service showed personal service of the statement of damages to Care Transportation on June 8, 2023.
On October 2, 2023, Plaintiffs filed (1) the statement of damages which Plaintiff Ashley Romero, as successor-in-interest for Estate of Mary Helen Hernandez, seeks against Care Transportation, and (2) a proof of service of this statement of damages on Care Transportation’s agent for service of process on August 15, 2023.
On November 27, 2023, the clerk entered Care Transportation’s default.
On April 22, 2024, Plaintiffs filed JUD-100 forms and declarations in support of a default judgment.
On June 4, 2024, the Court issued a minute order stating that Plaintiffs had not filed the required CIV-100 form.
On July 31, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a CIV-100 form requesting $1 million in special damages, $12 million in general damages, and $754.73 in costs.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter a default judgment against Defendant Care Transportation Services, LLC and award Plaintiffs $13,000,754.73.
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;
“(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
A request for default judgment must include “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 . . . .” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a)(7).) Plaintiffs have not complied with this requirement.
Section 2f of the CIV-100 form is blank.
Plaintiffs’ declarations do not establish a prima facie case for $12,000,000 in general damages and $1,000,000 in special damages.
Plaintiffs have not submitted evidence of fraud, malice, or oppression that would support a punitive damage award or evidence that would allow the Court to determine the effect of such an award on Care Transportation. (See Del Junco v. Hufnagel (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 789, 791 [reversing default judgment’s punitive damage award because record contained no proof of defendant’s financial condition].)
The Court denies the application for default judgment.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiffs’ application for default judgment filed on July 31, 2024.
Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this ruling.