Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV18584, Date: 2025-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18584    Hearing Date: March 14, 2025    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND 

On June 6, 2022, Plaintiff Yesenia V. Osorio Rivas (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Bodega Latina Corporation (“Bodega”), Chedraui U.S.A., and Does 1-50 for general negligence and premises liability. 

On April 13, 2023, Defendant Chedraui USA, Inc. (erroneously named as Chedraui U.S.A and Bodega Latina Corporation dba El Super) filed an answer. 

On May 30, 2023, the Court dismissed Chedraui U.S.A. and Chedraui USA, Inc., without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. 

On August 28, 2024, the clerk entered Bodega’s default. 

On December 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed an application for default judgment. 

PARTY’S REQUESTS 

Plaintiff’s CIV-100 form asks the Court to enter default judgment against Bodega for $1,037,533.36, consisting of $36,404.00 in special damages, $1,000,000.00 in general damages, and $1,129.36 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; 

“(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.) 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 

On April 13, 2023, Chedraui USA, Inc. (erroneously named as Chedraui U.S.A. and Bodega Latina Corporation dba El Super) filed an answer.  On May 30, 2023, the Court dismissed Chedraui U.S.A. and Chedraui USA, Inc., without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.  Plaintiff should explain why Chedraui USA, Inc.’s answer – purportedly on behalf of Bodega – and the Court's subsequent dismissal of Chedraui USA, Inc. do not prevent the entry of a default judgment against Bodega.  (See, e.g., Declaration of Benjamin J. Angulo supporting Plaintiff's Response to Order to Show Cause re Why The Court Should Not Dismiss Defendant Bodega Latina Corporation (filed March 22, 2024), ¶ 5 ["Bodega has merged with CHEDRAUI USA, INC."].)

Plaintiff’s CIV-100 and JUD-100 forms ask the Court to award Plaintiff $1,037,533.36.  However, Plaintiff’s declaration asks the Court for a default judgment of $500,000.00.  The damage requests should be consistent. 

Plaintiff has not dismissed the Doe defendants or applied for a separate judgment against them.  (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a)(7).) 

Plaintiff has not provided evidence that supports a $1,000,000.00 general damage award. 

The Court must review the statement of damages served on Bodega to ensure that the damages Plaintiff is requesting do not exceed the amounts listed in the statement of damages.  Plaintiff did not include a copy of the statement of damages in the default judgment application.  A statement of damages is attached to a proof of service by mail, which Plaintiff filed on May 25, 2023.  However, the May 25, 2023 proof of service does not show proper service of the statement of damages because the statement of damages must be served in the same manner as the summons.  Plaintiff should submit a copy of the statement of damages which Plaintiff subsequently served on Bodega in compliance with the service requirements for statements of damages, along with the proof of service. 

The Court denies the application. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff Yesenia V. Osorio Rivas’s application for default judgment against Defendant Bodega Latina Corporation filed on December 19, 2024. 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.