Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV02922, Date: 2023-11-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV02922    Hearing Date: November 16, 2023    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND 

On January 24, 2022, Plaintiff Manuel Del Rosario (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Ralph Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”), Integon Preferred Insurance Company (“Integon”), and Does 1-10 for motor vehicle tort, general negligence, and “Res Ipse Loquitur Negligence.”  The complaint sought compensation for damage to Plaintiff’s “property and business property,” “related injuries” (Complaint ¶ 9), and “lost wages and decreased earning capacity for [Plaintiff’s] business” (Complaint ¶ 23).  The complaint requested special damages, general damages, attorneys’ fees, interest, and costs, but did not state the amount of damages Plaintiff was seeking. 

On August 12, 2022, the Court dismissed Integon without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. 

On September 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a proof of personal service showing personal service on Rodriguez of the summons, complaint, and other documents on May 23, 2022. 

On September 22, 2022, the clerk entered Rodriguez’s default. 

On July 10, 2023, Rodriguez filed a request for default judgment. 

PARTY’S REQUEST 

Plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment against Rodriguez for $11,927, consisting of $8,400 in special damages, $527 in costs, and $3,000 in attorneys’ fees. 

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.) 

The court “shall hear the evidence offered by the plaintiff, and shall render judgment in the plaintiff’s favor for that relief, not exceeding the amount stated in the complaint, in the statement required by Section 425.11, or in the statement provided for by Section 425.115, as appears by the evidence to be just. If the taking of an account, or the proof of any fact, is necessary to enable the court to give judgment or to carry the judgment into effect, the court may take the account or hear the proof . . . .”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 585, subd. (b).) 

DISCUSSION 

Although the complaint is not entirely clear, Plaintiff appears to be seeking damages not only for property damage but also for undescribed “injuries.” (Complaint ¶ 9; see also Declaration of Manuel Del Rosario in Support of Application for Default Judgment Pursuant to CCP §585(D) p. 2 [“This claim arises from property damages and related injuries sustained on January 26, 2020”].) 

“In personal injury and wrongful death actions, the complaint must not state the amount of damages sought [citations].  Therefore, before a default may be entered, plaintiff must serve defendant with a statement of ‘the nature and amount of damages being sought.’ ”  (Cal. Practice Guide: Procedure, supra, ¶ 5:82, p. 5-27, citing Code Civ. Proc., § 425.11.)  “Proof of service of a [statement of damages under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.11] must accompany any request for entry of default to assure that defendants received actual notice of their potential liability.”  (Ibid.) 

The purpose of the statement of damages is to ensure 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.’ ’’ (Becker, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 493.) 

Even if Plaintiff is seeking only recovery for property damage, “[t]he amount of damages must be stated in the complaint or the default judgment is void.”  (Cal. Practice Guide: Procedure, supra, ¶ 5:73, p. 5-23; see id. ¶ 5:237, p. 5-60 [“In actions for money damages a default judgment is limited to the amount demanded in the complaint”].)  “Where plaintiffs do not know the exact amount owing, they can either . . . allege an estimate of the amount due, and receive a default judgment limited to that amount; or . . . similar to the procedure outlined for personal injury suits [citation], serve defendant with a precise statement of damages at a reasonable time before the default is entered.”  (Id., ¶ 5:239, pp. 5-62 to 5-63.)  

Here, Plaintiff did not provide an estimate of damages in the complaint and the Court has no evidence that Plaintiff served Rodriguez with a precise statement of damages at a reasonable time before default was entered. 

Therefore, the Court vacates the default entered on September 22, 2022, and denies the request for default judgment.  

CONCLUSION 

          The Court VACATES the default entered against Defendant Ralph Rodriguez on September 22, 2022. 

The Court DENIES the application for default judgment filed by Plaintiff Manuel Del Rosario on July 10, 2023. 

The Court sets an OSC re: Status of Entry of Default on December 18, 2023, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.