Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV22794, Date: 2024-12-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV22794 Hearing Date: December 16, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the documents submitted in support of the request for default judgment, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On July 14, 2022, Plaintiff Doris Figueroa (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Mi Jacalito (“Mi Jacalito”) and Does 1-25 for premises liability.
On August 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing personal service on Mi Jacalito of the summons, complaint, statement of damages, and other documents on February 1, 2023. The same day, the clerk entered Mi Jacalito’s default.
On January 5, 2024, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Nicolas Tovar (“Tovar”) as Doe 1. The Court also granted Plaintiff’s request to amend the complaint to replace the incorrect name Mi Jacalito with the defendant’s true name, Mi Jacalito Restaurant, Inc.
On September 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing substituted service on Tovar of the summons, complaint, statement of damages, and other documents on April 2, 2024. The same day, the clerk entered Tovar’s default.
On November 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed a request for Court judgment against Mi Jacalito and Tovar. Plaintiff also filed copies of statements of damages served on Mi Jacalito and Tovar. Each statement of damages listed $100,000.00 for pain, suffering, and inconvenience, $25,000.00 for emotional distress, $11,172.00 for past medical expenses, and “unknown” future medical expenses.
On November 20, 2024, the Court dismissed Does 2-25 without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter a default judgment against Mi Jacalito and Tovar and
award Plaintiff $136,794.25, consisting of $125,000.00 in general damages,
$11,172.00 in special damages, and $622.25 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)(7).)
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 (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.) 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 has submitted a complete default judgment application with all required information. The Court grants the application and awards Plaintiff $136,794.25 against Mi Jacalito and Tovar, jointly and severally.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Doris Figueroa’s application for default judgment against Defendants Mi Jacalito Restaurant, Inc. and Nicolas Tovar filed on November 12, 2024. The Court awards Plaintiff Doris Figueroa $136,794.25 against Defendants Mi Jacalito Restaurant, Inc. and Nicolas Tovar, jointly and severally.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.