Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV14317, Date: 2024-10-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV14317    Hearing Date: October 1, 2024    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND 

On April 29, 2022, Plaintiff City of Los Angeles (“Plaintiff”) filed this subrogation action against Defendants Thomas McKinney (“Defendant”) and Does 1-10 for motor vehicle tort. 

On June 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing substituted service of the summons, complaint, and other documents on May 17, 2022. 

On November 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed a statement of damages listing $142,558.77 in medical expenses to date and $6,943.60 in property damage. 

On January 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing substituted service on Defendant of the summons, complaint, statement of damages, and other documents on January 19, 2024. 

On February 29, 2024, the clerk entered Defendant’s default. 

On July 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed an application for default judgment against Defendant.  On July 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed another application for default judgment against Defendant. 

On July 31, 2024, the Court dismissed the Doe defendants without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 

Plaintiff asks the Court to enter default judgment against Defendant and to award Plaintiff $236,763.56, consisting of $236,142.10 in special damages and $621.00 in costs. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

          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).)  

DISCUSSION 

          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.) 

Here, Plaintiff requests damages in an amount that exceeds the amount listed in Plaintiff’s statement of damages.  The statement of damages listed $142,558.77 in medical expenses to date and $6,943.60 in property damage.  The application for default judgment seeks $236,142.10.  The Court denies the application. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES Plaintiff City of Los Angeles’s application for default judgment against Defendant Thomas McKinney filed on July 24, 2024 and July 25, 2024. 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.