Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV10709, Date: 2024-03-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV10709 Hearing Date: March 20, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the documents submitted in support of a default judgment, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On March 29, 2022, Plaintiff Rayvon Aldridge (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Van Co Loi (“Loi”) and Alounkone Malavong (“Malavong”) for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.
On June 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing substituted service on Loi of the summons, complaint, and other documents on April 24, 2022.
On May 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed a proof of publication of the summons and statement of damages. The statement of damages contained in the proof of publication sought $100,000.00 in general damages for pain, suffering, and inconvenience and $11,435.00 in special damages for medical expenses.
On July 19, 2023, the clerk entered Loi’s default.
On December 11, 2023, the Court dismissed Malavong without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On January 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed a request for Court judgment to be heard on March 20, 2024.
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 (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.)
DISCUSSION
The statement of damages contained in the proof of publication states that Plaintiff is seeking $100,000.00 in general damages for pain, suffering, and inconvenience and $11,435.00 in special damages for medical expenses. (Counsel’s declaration filed on September 6, 2023 asserts that a copy of the statement of damages is attached to the declaration, but no statement of damages is attached.)
Although Plaintiff’s statement of damages listed $11,435.00 in special damages, Plaintiff’s CIV-100 form requests $100,000.00 in special damages. The Court cannot grant special damages in excess of the amount listed in the statement of damages.
Plaintiff’s CIV-100 form also contains two different cost amounts: $922.23 in Section 2d and $1,117.18 in Section 7e. Plaintiff should revise the form to make the cost requests consistent.
While Plaintiff’s CIV-100 form requests a judgment of $112,357.23, Plaintiff’s JUD-100 form requests a judgment of $113,962.92. Plaintiff should revise the forms to make them consistent.
Plaintiff has submitted a declaration requesting 10% prejudgment interest from the date he filed the complaint. Plaintiff does not, however, explain the legal basis for his request for prejudgment interest. Plaintiff has not shown that Loi failed to accept an offer under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 and Plaintiff then obtained a more favorable judgment. (See Civ. Code, § 3291.) (In that event, prejudgment interest would run from the date of the offer.) Plaintiff also has not shown that his damages were “certain, or capable of being made certain by calculation” (Civ. Code, § 3287, subd. (a)) when he filed the complaint. Plaintiff should either remove the request for prejudgment interest or explain why the Court is authorized to grant it.
Plaintiff’s complaint lists Doe defendants on page 2 and in the complaint’s attachments. The Court cannot enter default judgment unless Plaintiff dismisses the Doe defendants or applies for a separate judgment against them. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a)(7).)
The
Court denies the application.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Plaintiff Rayvon Aldridge’s application for default judgment filed on January 24, 2024 without prejudice.
The Court sets an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Failure to Resubmit Default Judgment Packet on May 20, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.