Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV31535, Date: 2024-08-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV31535 Hearing Date: August 26, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the documents submitted in support of the request for default judgment, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On September 27, 2022, Plaintiffs Joel Zavalza (“Zavala”) and Zavalza Family Trust (“Trust”) filed this action against Defendants Depaz Transport LLC (“Transport”), Miguel Anghel Depaz (“Depaz”), and Does 1-50 for trespass in violation of Penal Code section 602.8, common law trespass, battery tort, and assault tort. On Plaintiffs’ trespass claims, Plaintiffs alleged that as a result of Defendants’ acts and/or omissions, Plaintiffs were “damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, including, but not limited to interest, expert fees, attorneys’ fees and costs, and believed to exceed $30,000.00.” (Complaint ¶¶ 25, 34.) On Plaintiffs’ battery and assault claims, Zavala sought “economic damages, non-economic damages, including compensation for pain and suffering and other losses, and punitive damages according to proof at trial.” (Complaint ¶¶ 44, 54.) The complaint prayed for “all actual, consequential, and incidental financial losses and damages according to proof,” “general damages, according to proof,” “attorneys’ fees according to proof,” “prejudgment interest, according to proof,” and “punitive and exemplary damages, according to proof.”
On October 11, 2022, Plaintiffs filed proofs of service showing substituted service on Transport and Depaz of the summons, complaint, and other documents on October 3, 2022.
On November 16, 2022, the clerk entered Depaz’s and Transport’s defaults.
On June 10, 2024, the Court dismissed the Doe defendants with prejudice at Plaintiffs’ request.
On June 5, 2024, Plaintiffs filed applications for default judgment.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter a default judgment against Defendants and enter judgment of $38,014.80, consisting of $32,800.00 as the demand of the complaint, $815.80 in costs, and $4,399.00 in attorney’s fees.
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 (Becker).) 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
“Defaulting parties have a constitutional right to adequate notice of the maximum judgment that may be assessed against them [citation].” (L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2024) ¶ 5:250, p. 5-66 (Cal. Practice Guide).)
In their complaint, Plaintiffs allege that their damages on the trespass claims are “believed to exceed $30,000.00.” This allegation is not sufficient to put Defendants on notice that a judgment of $32,800.00 might be entered against them. (See Becker, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 492.)
In addition, Plaintiffs have not shown that they served a statement of damages on Defendants before the clerk entered Defendants’ defaults. Code of Civil Procedure section 425.11 requires service of a statement of damages in personal injury actions and “actions in which injury . . . claims are closely tied to whatever relief is requested.” (Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 5:86, p. 5-29; see Jones v. Interstate Recovery Service (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 925, 929-930 [cause of action for trespass and conversion of personal property was “closely tied” to claims for assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress].)
Where a statement of damages is required, “before a default may be entered, plaintiff must serve defendant with a statement of ‘the nature and amount of damages being sought.’ ” (Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 5:82, p. 5-27.) “[S]ervice [of the statement of damages] after default entry but before prove-up [is] not sufficient.” (Ibid.) “The purpose is to give defendant ‘one last chance’ to respond, knowing exactly what judgment may be entered if he or she fails to appear.” (Id., ¶ 5:83, p. 5-28.)
As a result, when the clerk entered Defendants’ defaults on November 16, 2022, Defendants had not received notice of the maximum amount of damages that could be assessed against them. The Court therefore vacates the November 16, 2022 defaults.
Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to attorney’s fees, arguing: “Pursuant to California Civil Code § 354.8(d), ‘A prevailing plaintiff may be awarded reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs including, but not limited to, expert witness fees and expenses as part of the costs.’ ” (Application for Entry of Judgment by Default and Court Judgment p. 7.)
Plaintiffs appear to be relying on Code of Civil Procedure section 354.8, which applies to actions for assault or battery where the conduct constituting the assault or battery would also constitute an act of torture, genocide, a war crime, an attempted extrajudicial killing, or crimes against humanity. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 354.8, subd. (a)(1).) Plaintiffs have not shown the statute applies to their claims.
CONCLUSION
The Court VACATES the defaults entered against Defendants Depaz Transport LLC and Miguel Anghel Depaz on November 16, 2022.
The
Court DENIES the application for default judgment filed by Plaintiffs Zavalza
and Zavalza Family Trust on June 5, 2024.
The Court sets an order to show cause re: entry of default on October 25, 2024.
Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Plaintiffs are ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.