Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV22592, Date: 2024-11-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV22592 Hearing Date: November 25, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the documents submitted in support of the request for default judgment, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On July 13, 2022, Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants David Malcom Tutuila Iosia Jr. (“David Iosia”), Yvonne Vanimonimo Iosia (“Yvonne Iosia”) and Does 1-10 for subrogation recovery. The complaint demanded $44,176.27.
On July 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing personal service of the summons, complaint, statement of damages, and other documents on David Iosia on July 23, 2022.
On September 1, 2022, the clerk entered David Iosia’s default.
On April 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing substituted service of the summons, complaint, statement of damages, and other documents on Yvonne Iosia on March 24, 2024.
On May 17, 2024, the clerk entered Yvonne Iosia’s default.
On
August 29, 2024, the Court dismissed Does 1-10 without prejudice at Plaintiff’s
request.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter default judgment against David Iosia Jr. and Yvonne Iosia
and award Plaintiff $51,419.14, consisting of $44,176.27 as the demand of the
complaint, $6,582.87 in prejudgment interest, and $660.00 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;
“(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
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
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter judgment against Defendants for $44,176.27, including $35,000.00 for bodily injury damages sustained by driver Summer Sagewen French (“Summer French”). (See Arias Decl. ¶¶ 5, 9.) To support the assertion that Summer French sustained $35,000.00 in bodily injury damages, Plaintiff cites Exhibit I to the Arias declaration.
Exhibit I describes medical expenses incurred by Nanette Lopez, not Summer French. Nanette Lopez is apparently the person to whom Plaintiff issued the insurance policy and the owner of the vehicle which Summer French was driving when the accident occurred. (See Arias Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.) Plaintiff does not explain why Exhibit I describes Nanette Lopez, rather than Summer French, as the “patient” who incurred the listed medical expenses.
Even assuming Exhibit I describes Summer French’s medical expenses, the exhibit does not demonstrate that Plaintiff was required to pay Summer French $35,000.00 in bodily injury damages. Based on Exhibit I, Summer French appears to have incurred no more than $5,500.00 in medical expenses as a result of the accident. Plaintiff should explain the basis for its request for $35,000.00 in bodily injury damages.
In addition, the declarant has not signed Section 8 of the CIV-100 form.
The Court denies the petition.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club’s application for default judgment against Defendants David Malcom Tutuila Iosia Jr. and Yvonne Vanimonimo Iosia filed on August 29, 2024.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.