Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV28113, Date: 2025-04-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28113    Hearing Date: April 7, 2025    Dept: 28

Having considered the documents submitted in support of a default judgment, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On August 29, 2022, Plaintiff Alvin Daniel (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Raymond Ojeda (“Ojeda”), Jamal Leshun Daniels (“Daniels”), MV Transportation, Inc. (“MV Transportation”), and Does 1-50 for negligence. 

Also on February 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Defendants Ojeda, Daniels, MV Transportation, and Does 1-50 for negligence. 

On May 3, 2023, the Court dismissed MV Transportation and Daniels with prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. 

On April 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing personal service on Ojeda of the summons, complaint, first amended complaint, statement of damages, and other documents on January 16, 2024. 

On April 18, 2024, the clerk entered Ojeda’s default. 

On July 31, 2024, the Court dismissed the Doe defendants with prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. 

On February 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed an application for default judgment. 

PARTY’S REQUEST 

Plaintiff’s CIV-100 form asks the Court to enter a default judgment against Ojeda and award Plaintiff either $40,743.24 or $40, 734.24, consisting of $30,000.00 in special damages, $10,000.00 in general damages, and either $743.24 or $734.24 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 2023) ¶ 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 

The Court previously found support for $5,661.00 in special damages and $15,000.00 in general damages. (Min. Orders dated 8/9/24 and 10/21/24.) 

Plaintiff’s CIV-100 form asks the Court to award $30,000.00 in special damages.  However, Plaintiff does not explain the basis for an award of special damages that exceeds $5,661.00, the amount for which the Court previously found support.   Plaintiff’s memorandum of points and authorities asserts that “direct evidence supports a finding that [Plaintiff] went to the Good Samaritan Hospital (8/21/21), Dr. Alex Chai MD (10/5/21), Ngoc B. Truong, DO (10/27/21), Healthpointe Medical Group Inc. (physical therapy, 11/11/21-11.21.21), and New Wave Health Care Center (physical therapy, 12/17/21 – 3/27/22), such that the reasonable value of said medical services is no less than $20,000.00.”  (Memorandum of Points and Authorities p. 4.)  But Plaintiff has provided no evidence to support the assertion that the reasonable value of medical services is no less than $20,000.00. 

Plaintiff’s JUD-100 form and memorandum of points and authorities ask the Court to award $10,000.00 for property damages.  However, Plaintiff’s statement of damages did not list any amount for property damages.  Therefore, the Court will not award $10,000.00 for property damages. 

The Court grants Plaintiff’s application for default judgment and awards Plaintiff $21,395.27, consisting of $5,661.00 in special damages, $15,000.00 in general damages, and $734.27 in costs. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Alvin Daniel’s application for default judgment against Defendant Raymond Ojeda.  The Court awards Plaintiff Alvin Daniel $21,395.27. 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.