Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV17149, Date: 2024-01-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV17149 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 May 24, 2022, Plaintiff Dajuan Gross (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Bell Gardens Hospitality LLC (“Bell Gardens”), Stay Hotels Group LLC (“Stay Hotels”), Starlite Homes, LLC (“Starlight Homes”), Amit Patel (“Amit Patel”), Shyamal Patel (“Shyamal Patel”), and Does 1-100 for premises liability and general negligence.
On July 12, 2022, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Infinity Management Group Inc as Doe 1 and Dusk Hotel Hollywood as Doe 2.
On October 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Bell Gardens, Stay Hotels, Starlite Homes, Amit Patel, Shyamal Patel, and Does 1-100 for premises liability and general negligence.
On October 27, 2022, Plaintiff amended the first amended complaint to include Defendant 7051 Sunset Boulevard LLC (“7051 Sunset”) as Doe 3.
On January 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing personal service of the summons, first amended complaint, and other documents on 7051 Sunset on November 13, 2022.
On February 15, 2023, the Court dismissed Bell Gardens, Stay Hotels, Starlite Homes, Amit Patel, and Shyamal Patel without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On February 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a statement of damages sought against 7051 Sunset with a proof of service showing personal service on 7051 Sunset on February 20, 2023.
On July 11, 2023, the Court entered 7051 Sunset’s default.
On March 8, 2024, the Court dismissed the Doe defendants with prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On March 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default judgment against 7051 Sunset.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter a default judgment against Defendant 7051 Sunset Boulevard LLC and award Plaintiff $114,125.95, consisting of $50,000.00 in special damages, $50,000.00 in general damages, $12,745.20 in interest, and $1,380,75 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;
“(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
Plaintiff requests prejudgment interest of 10% on $37,668.00 from the “date of loss” on June 9, 2020. According to Plaintiff, $37,668 represents “his economic damages and costs in bringing this action.” (Declaration of Interest Calculation in Support of Default Judgement.) Plaintiff does not, however, explain the legal basis for his request for prejudgment interest.
Plaintiff has not shown that 7051 Sunset 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)) on the “date of loss.” Plaintiff should either remove the request for prejudgment interest or explain why the Court is authorized to grant it.
In addition, the application does not explain the basis for Plaintiff’s request for $50,000.00 in special damages. Plaintiff’s statement of damages listed $36,517.24 as his medical expenses to date. As noted, Plaintiff asserts that $37,668 is “his economic damages and costs in bringing this action.” (Declaration of Interest Calculation in Support of Default Judgement.) Plaintiff’s declaration filed March 15, 2024 states that his total medical specials are $37,668. (Declaration of Plaintiff DaJuan Gross in Support of Request for Entry of Default Against Defendant 7051 Sunset Boulevard, LLC ¶ 5.) Plaintiff has not provided evidence of future medical expenses.
The
Court denies the application.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Plaintiff Dajuan Gross’s application for default judgment filed on March 12, 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.