Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV46487, Date: 2025-05-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV46487    Hearing Date: May 22, 2025    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND 

On December 21, 2021, Plaintiff James Wood (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Kevin Karen Badalyan (“Defendant”) and Does 1-50 for negligence, assault, battery, infliction of emotional distress, and negligent supervision. 

On August 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing substituted service of a statement of damages on Defendant on July 26, 2022. 

On June 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing substituted service of the summons, complaint, and other documents on Defendant on June 9, 2023. 

On July 25, 2023, the clerk entered Defendant’s default. 

On March 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed an application for default judgment. 

PARTY’S REQUESTS 

Plaintiff asks the Court to award $2,150,586.00, consisting of special damages of $2,000,000.00, general damages of $150,000.00, and costs of $586.00. 

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.   Past medical care 

“Plaintiff is entitled to recover the ‘reasonable cost’ of past medical care necessitated by defendant’s tortious conduct.  However, the fundamental purpose of compensatory damages is to make plaintiff ‘whole’—not to bestow a ‘profit’ or windfall [citation].  Hence, ‘reasonable’ compensation for past medical expenses may not exceed the amount actually paid or incurred—whether by plaintiff directly or by private insurance, Medi-Cal, Medicare, plaintiff’s employer or any ‘collateral source.’ ” (Z. Haning et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Personal Injury (Rutter 2023) ¶ 3:352, p. 3-59 (“Personal Injury Practice Guide”).) 

“Where plaintiff’s medical insurer negotiates an amount [of medical expenses] less than the medical provider’s ordinary rates, plaintiff may not recover the ‘negotiated amount differential.’  This is so even if the full or ordinary rates arguably represent the ‘reasonable value’ of the medical services: ‘Having never incurred the full bill, plaintiff could not recover it in damages for economic loss.’ ”  (Personal Injury Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 3:353, p. 3-59, quoting Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541, 560-567 [plaintiff not entitled to $189,979 “reasonable value” of services rendered by medical providers who accepted $59,692 pursuant to agreement with plaintiff’s insurer].) 

Here, the billing records attached to Plaintiff’s declaration do not support the CIV-100 form’s request for $2,000,000.00 in special damages.  The billing records also do not appear to support the statement in Plaintiff’s declaration that he suffered injuries “in the sum of $444,000.00.”  It is unclear how Plaintiff calculated these figures.  Plaintiff may request damages for past medical expenses based only on the amount of medical expenses actually paid or incurred, excluding the “negotiated amount differential.” 

B.   Statement of damages 

Plaintiff has not submitted a copy of the statement of damages which Plaintiff served on Defendant on July 26, 2022.  The Court cannot determine whether the damages Plaintiff requests exceed the amounts listed in the statement of damages unless Plaintiff provides a copy of the statement of damages to the Court along with a declaration verifying that it is a copy of the statement of damages served on Defendant on July 26, 2022. 

C.   General damages 

Plaintiff’s CIV-100 form asks the Court to award $150,000.00 in general damages.  However, Plaintiff has not presented evidence establishing a prima facie case for a general damages award of $150,000.00. 

D.   Declaration of nonmilitary status 

In Section 8 of the CIV-100 form, Plaintiff states that he knows that Defendant is not in the U.S. military because of “health issues.”  The statement does not show that Defendant is not in the U.S. military for purposes of California Military and Veterans Code sections 400 and 402, subdivision (f). 

The Court denies the application. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff James Wood’s application for default judgment against Defendant Kevin Karen Badalyan filed on March 10, 2025. 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.