Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV31518, Date: 2024-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV31518    Hearing Date: April 17, 2024    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND 

On September 27, 2022, Plaintiff Etta Faye Williams Clark (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Angelus Funeral Home (“Defendant”) and Does 1-50 for negligence and premises liability. 

On March 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing personal service on Defendant of the summons, complaint, and other documents on March 17, 2023. 

On May 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amended proof of service showing personal service on Defendant of the summons, complaint, statement of damages, and other documents on March 17, 2023. 

On May 10, 2023, the clerk entered Defendant’s default. 

On March 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed a request for Court judgment to be heard on April 17, 2024. 

On March 11, 2024, the Court dismissed the Doe defendants with prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. 

PARTY’S REQUEST 

Plaintiff Etta Faye Williams Clark asks the Court to enter a default judgment against Defendant Angelus Funeral Home and award Plaintiff $69,764.82, consisting of $50,000.00 in general damages, $19,251.60 in special damages, and $513.22 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, 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 completed default judgment packet with all necessary attachments. The Court grants the application. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Etta Faye Williams Clark’s application for default judgment against Defendant Angelus Funeral Home filed on March 8, 2024.  The Court enters judgment for Plaintiff Etta Faye Williams Clark against Angelus Funeral Home in the amount of $69,764,82. 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.