Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV19352, Date: 2025-06-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV19352 Hearing Date: June 4, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the documents submitted in support of Plaintiff’s request for default judgment, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On June 14, 2022, Plaintiff Mary Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant David Lopez (“Defendant”) for motor vehicle tort, general negligence, and wrongful death. The complaint states that “Plaintiff seeks in excess of $1,000,000 in wrongful death damages.”
On July 5, 2024, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice. On August 14, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal.
On February 26, 2025, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing personal service of the summons and complaint on Defendant on November 17, 2022.
On March 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed a statement of damages listing $5,000,000.00 in damages for emotional distress, $10,000,000.00 in damages for loss of society and companionship, and $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages. The attached proof of service stated Plaintiff personally served the statement of damages on Defendant on September 6, 2023.
On April 7, 2025, the clerk entered Defendant’s default.
On May 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed an application for default judgment.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter a default judgment against Defendant and award Plaintiff $16,000,000.00, consisting of “excess $1,000,000” as the demand of the complaint and general damages of $15,000,000.00.
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.)
C. Standing to assert wrongful death claim
Code of Civil Procedure section 377.60 provides in part:
“A cause of action for the death of a person caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another may be asserted by any of the following persons or by the decedent’s personal representative on their behalf:
“(a) The decedent’s surviving spouse, domestic partner, children, and issue of deceased children, or, if there is no surviving issue of the decedent, the persons, including the surviving spouse or domestic partner, who would be entitled to the property of the decedent by intestate succession. If the parents of the decedent would be entitled to bring an action under this subdivision, and the parents are deceased, then the legal guardians of the decedent, if any, may bring an action under this subdivision as if they were the decedent’s parents.
“(b) (1) Whether or not qualified under subdivision (a), if they were dependent on the decedent, the putative spouse, children of the putative spouse, stepchildren, parents, or the legal guardians of the decedent if the parents are deceased.
“(2) As used in this subdivision, “putative spouse” means the surviving spouse of a void or voidable marriage who is found by the court to have believed in good faith that the marriage to the decedent was valid.
“(c) A minor, whether or not qualified under subdivision (a) or (b), if, at the time of the decedent’s death, the minor resided for the previous 180 days in the decedent’s household and was dependent on the decedent for one-half or more of the minor’s support.
“(d) This section applies to any cause of action arising on or after January 1, 1993.
“(e) The addition of this section by Chapter 178 of the Statutes of 1992 was not intended to adversely affect the standing of any party having standing under prior law, and the standing of parties governed by that version of this section as added by Chapter 178 of the Statutes of 1992 shall be the same as specified herein as amended by Chapter 563 of the Statutes of 1996.
“(f) (1) For the purpose of this section, “domestic partner” means a person who, at the time of the decedent’s death, was the domestic partner of the decedent in a registered domestic partnership established in accordance with subdivision (b) of Section 297 of the Family Code.
“(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), for a death occurring prior to January 1, 2002, a person may maintain a cause of action pursuant to this section as a domestic partner of the decedent by establishing the factors listed in paragraphs (1) to (6), inclusive, of subdivision (b) of Section 297 of the Family Code, as it read pursuant to Section 3 of Chapter 893 of the Statutes of 2001, prior to its becoming inoperative on January 1, 2005.
“(3) The amendments made to this subdivision during the 2003–04 Regular Session of the Legislature are not intended to revive any cause of action that has been fully and finally adjudicated by the courts, or that has been settled, or as to which the applicable limitations period has run.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 377.60.)
DISCUSSION
A. Standing
Plaintiff has shown that she has standing to assert a wrongful death claim under Code of Civil Procedure section 377.60, subdivision (b)(1), which permits a parent who was dependent on the decedent to assert a wrongful death claim.
B. Damages
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff is to submit a revised judgment for the Court's signature.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.