Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV02250, Date: 2025-02-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV02250 Hearing Date: February 7, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the documents submitted in support of a default judgment, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On January 19, 2022, Plaintiff Cecilia Villapando (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Martin Rodriguez Godinez (“Defendant”) and Does 1-50 for personal injuries.
On August 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing personal service of the summons, complaint, blank statement of damages form, and other documents on Defendant on August 6, 2023.
On September 28, 2023, the clerk entered Defendant’s default.
On November 20, 2023, the Court dismissed the Doe defendants without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On March 21, 2024, the Court set aside the September 28, 2023 default because Plaintiff did not serve a statement of damages on Defendant prior to entry of default.
On May 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing service by mail of an amended statement of damages on Defendant on November 26, 2023. Also on May 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed a declaration of diligence regarding attempts to serve a statement of damages on Defendant on November 16, 19, and 23, 2023. On May 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed an amended statement of damages listing $3,000.00 for pain, suffering, and inconvenience, $1,052.00 for medical expenses incurred to date, and $545.00 in costs. The attached proof of service showed substituted service on Defendant on November 25, 2023.
On July 30, 2024, the clerk entered Defendant’s default.
On November 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed a request for Court judgment.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter a default judgment against Defendant and award Plaintiff $5,058.35, consisting of $3,000.00 in general damages, $1,052.00 in special damages, and $1,006.35 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, 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.)
Plaintiff has submitted a complete default judgment application with all required information. The Court grants the application and awards Plaintiff $5,058.35 against Defendant.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Cecilia Villapando’s application for default judgment against Defendant Martin Rodriguez Godinez filed on November 20, 2024. The Court awards Plaintiff Cecilia Villapando $5,058.35 against Defendant Martin Rodriguez Godinez.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.