Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV24895, Date: 2025-04-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV24895 Hearing Date: April 28, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the documents submitted in support of an application for default judgment, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On August 1, 2022, Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Isai Rodriguez, Jasmine Elaine Rodriguez, and Does 1-10 for automobile subrogation. The complaint demanded damages of $58,381.71 plus costs and interest.
On September 27, 2022, the Court dismissed Defendants Isai Rodriguez and Jasmine Elaine Rodriguez without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
Also on September 27, 2022, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Emmanuel Antonio Flores, also known as Emmanuel Gonzalez Flores, as Doe 1 (“Flores”).
On September 3, 2024, the Court dismissed Does 1-10 without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
Also on September 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a statement of damages sought against Flores listing $23,381.71 for property damage and $35,000.00 for uninsured motorist bodily injury.
On October 24, 2024, the clerk entered Flores’s default.
On December 31, 2024, Plaintiff filed an application for default judgment against Flores.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter a default judgment against Flores and award Plaintiff $68,785.17, consisting of $58,381.71 as the demand of the complaint, $9,886.50 in interest, and $516.96 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;
“(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.)
DISCUSSION
As noted, on September 27, 2022, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Flores as Doe 1. However, on September 3, 2024, the Court dismissed Does 1-10 without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. Because Flores was Doe 1, the Court dismissed Flores without prejudice. The Court cannot enter judgment against a party who has been dismissed.
In addition, while Plaintiff's CIV-100 and JUD-100 forms ask the Court to award damages of $58,381.71, the supporting declaration asks the Court to enter judgment for only $23, 381.71. The declaration states that although Plaintiff paid $58,381.71, Plaintiff is waiving the difference between $58,381.71 and $23,381.71. (Dec. ¶ 6.)
The Court denies the application.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club’s application for default judgment against Defendant Emmanuel Antonio Flores, also known as Emmanuel Gonzalez Flores, filed on December 31, 2024.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.