Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV14946, Date: 2025-04-14 Tentative Ruling
All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court. This does not excuse a moving party's need to do one of the following: appear; submit; or take a matter off calendar by canceling the motion in the case reservation system before issuance of the tentative ruling if the matter moving party does not intend to proceed.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 22STCV14946 Hearing Date: April 14, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the documents submitted in support of a default judgment, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On May 5, 2022, Plaintiff EB Halem, LLC, dba Drive LA (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Mohsen Saeedy (“Defendant”) and Does 1-25 for general negligence and breach of contract. On the negligence claim, Plaintiff claimed “damages to Plaintiffs vehicle” and “[f]urther damages . . . consist[ing] of loss of use of property and a resulting loss of income.” On the breach of contract claim, Plaintiff claimed “property damage to the said vehicle” and “residual losses arising from said property damage, including, but not limited to, per diem loss of use, vehicle recovery fees, rim damage, and failure to indemnify Plaintiff for said losses.” In the prayer, Plaintiff prayed for compensatory damages “according to proof.” The complaint attached a copy of a rental agreement.
On October 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amended proof of service showing substituted service of the summons, complaint, and other documents on Defendant on May 25, 2023.
On October 13, 2023, the clerk entered Defendant’s default.
On December 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed a statement of damages. As general damages, Plaintiff claimed $3,654.21 in costs and attorney’s fees and $100,000.00 for breach of contract. As special damages, Plaintiff claimed $525,000.00 for loss of use of vehicle and property damage. The attached proof of service showed service by U.S. mail on Defendant on June 1, 2023.
On December 26, 2023, the Court dismissed the Doe defendants without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On January 5, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff’s application for default judgment, noting, among other things, the statement of damages had not been served in the same manner as the summons.
On May 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing substituted service of a statement of damages on Defendant on May 15, 2024.
On May 31, 2024, Plaintiff filed an amended statement of damages. As general damages, Plaintiff claimed $667.71 in costs. Plaintiff listed no special damages. The attached proof of service showed substituted service on Defendant on May 15, 2024.
On June 20, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff’s application for default judgment. The Court observed that Plaintiff, an entity, was seeking recovery only of property damages. However, the complaint did not list any property damage amounts and Plaintiff served its statements of damages on Defendant via substituted service after the clerk entered Defendant’s default.
On November 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed an application for default judgment.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter default judgment against Defendant and award Plaintiff $233,009.79, consisting of $232,342.08 as the “demand of the complaint” and $667.71 in costs.
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
“Defaulting parties have a constitutional right to adequate notice of the maximum judgment that may be assessed against them [citation].” (Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 5:250, p. 5-66.) “In actions for money damages a default judgment is limited to the amount demanded in the complaint [citation].” (Id., ¶ 5:237, p. 5-60.) “Due process requires notice to the defaulting defendant [of] both . . . the type and amount of relief sought.” (Id., ¶ 5:239, pp. 5-61 to 5-62.)
Here, Plaintiff asks the Court to enter judgment against Defendant for $233,009.79, consisting of $232,342.08 as the “demand of the complaint” and $667.71 in costs. However, the record does not show that Plaintiff put Defendant on notice that Plaintiff was seeking damages in this amount prior to entry of Defendant’s default on October 13, 2023. Plaintiff’s complaint did not ask for a specific amount of damages but prayed for compensatory damages “according to proof.” And Plaintiff did not properly serve a statement of damages on Defendant prior to the entry of default.
Because Plaintiff did not put Defendant on notice of the amount of Defendant’s potential liability before the entry of Defendant’s default, the Court vacates the default.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Plaintiff EB Halem, LLC, dba Drive LA’s application for default judgment and vacates the default entered on October 13, 2023.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.