Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV20478, Date: 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV20478 Hearing Date: December 1, 2023 Dept: 28
Having considered the documents submitted in support of a default judgment, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On June 23, 2022, Plaintiff Phoebe Ann Heywood (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants City of Los Angeles (“City”), Frank E. Walters (“Walters”), and Does 1-250 for negligence, governmental tort liability and premises liability.
On January 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing personal service on Walters, at an address in Los Angeles, of a statement of damages on January 8, 2023.
On February 23, 2023, the clerk entered Walters’s default.
On March 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed another proof of service showing service on Walters of the summons, complaint, statement of damages, and other documents, by “mail and acknowledgment of receipt of service” under Code of Civil Procedure section 415.40, at an address in Austin, Texas, on February 23, 2023.
On September 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed a request for Court judgment to be heard on December 1, 2023.
On October 20, 2023, the City filed an answer.
Trial is currently scheduled for June 27, 2024.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter a default judgment against Defendant Frank E. Walters and award Plaintiff $544,476.66, consisting of $500,000.00 in general damages, $43,599.27 in special damages, and $877.39 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 (Cal. Practice Guide), 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; see Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 5:258, p. 5-70.)
The Court may not award speculative damages such as compensation for future loss or harm which, although possible, is conjectural or not reasonably certain. (Scognamillo v. Herrick (2019) 106 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1151 [default judgment’s damage award for a second surgery was speculative where “the trial court did not have before it sufficient evidence, based on a reasonable medical probability, to make such an award”].)
DISCUSSION
A. The Court will vacate the default unless Plaintiff can demonstrate that she properly served the summons, complaint, and statement of damages on Walters before the clerk entered Walters's default
As noted above, Plaintiff filed proofs of service that purport to show personal service of the summons, complaint, and statement of damages on Walters at an address in Los Angeles before the clerk entered Walters’s default on February 23, 2023. However, on March 26, 2023, after entry of Walters’s default, Plaintiff filed another proof of service showing service on Walters of the summons, complaint, and statement of damages by “mail and acknowledgment of receipt of service” under Code of Civil Procedure section 415.40, at an address in Austin, Texas, on February 23, 2023.
If Plaintiff re-served the summons, complaint, and statement of damages on March 26, 2023 because the initial service of these documents on Walters was improper, then the Court must vacate the default. A default cannot be entered until a defendant has received proper service of the summons, complaint, and statement of damages. The Court will vacate the default unless Plaintiff can demonstrate that service of the summons, complaint, and statement of damages on Walters at the address in Los Angeles before the entry of default was proper.
B. The City and Doe defendants
Plaintiff has not dismissed or applied for separate judgment against the City or the Doe defendants. The Court cannot grant a default judgment unless Plaintiff complies with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a)(7), which requires "[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.”
C. Medical bills
“Plaintiff is entitled to recover the ‘reasonable cost’ of past medical care necessitated by the defendant’s tortious conduct. However, the fundamental purpose of compensatory damages is to make plaintiff ‘whole’ – not to bestow a ‘profit’ or ‘windfall’ [citation omitted]. Hence, ‘reasonable’ compensation for past medical expenses may not exceed the amount actually paid or incurred – whether by the plaintiff directly or by private insurance, Medi-Cal, Medicare, plaintiff’s employer or any other ‘collateral source.’ ” (Z. Haning et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Personal Injury (Rutter 2022) ¶ 3:352, p. 3-59 (Cal. Practice Guide: PI), emphasis omitted.)
“Where plaintiff’s medical insurer negotiates an amount less than the medical provider’s ordinary rates, plaintiff may not recover the ‘negotiated amount differential.’ This is so even if the full or ordinary rates arguably represent the ‘reasonable value’ of the medical services: ‘Having never incurred the full bill, plaintiff could not recover it in damages for economic loss.’ “ (Cal. Practice Guide: PI, supra, ¶ 3:353, p. 3-59, quoting Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541, 560-561 [plaintiff not entitled to $189,979 ‘reasonable value’ of the services rendered by medical providers who accepted $59,692 under agreement with plaintiff’s insurer].)
Plaintiff’s bills from medical care providers “will not alone support the medical claim since they do not reveal whether the charges were reasonable, whether they were for reasonably necessary medical attention to an injury-related condition, and whether the amount billed was actually paid or required to be paid [citation].” (Cal. Practice Guide: PI, supra, ¶ 3:366, p. 3-66.) “Evidence that medical bills actually were paid is . . . evidence – although not dispositive – that the charges were reasonable.” (Id., ¶ 3:367, p. 3-66, emphasis omitted.)
Here, Plaintiff has submitted a declaration stating that, “[u]pon information and belief, [Plaintiff’s] medical bills for emergency treatment are approximately $43,599.27.” The declaration refers to medical bills and records in Exhibit A to the declaration.
The medical bills do not establish a prima facie case for damages. Some of the medical bills appear to reflect treatment in 2020, before Plaintiff’s alleged injury. In addition, Plaintiff has not explained whether any of the medical bills were covered by insurance or whether any medical provider agreed to reduce the amount Plaintiff was required to pay.
For the reasons stated above, the Court denies the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Plaintiff Phoebe Ann Heywood’s request for default judgment filed on September 19, 2023.
The Court sets an Order To Show Cause Re: Status of Entry of Default Judgment on February 5, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.