Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV00123, Date: 2024-05-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV00123    Hearing Date: May 7, 2024    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND 

On January 4, 2023, Plaintiff Carmen Erazo (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Justin Brown (“Defendant”) and Does 1-25 for negligence. 

On July 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing substituted service on Defendant of the summons, complaint, statement of damages, and other documents on July 17, 2023. 

On October 26, 2023, the clerk entered Defendant’s default. 

On February 9, 2024, the Court dismissed the Doe defendants with prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. 

On April 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed a request for Court judgment to be heard on May 7, 2024. 

PARTY’S REQUEST 

Plaintiff’s CIV-100 form asks the Court to enter a default judgment against Defendant and award Plaintiff $19,988.53, consisting of $10,000.00 in general damages, $9,190.00 in special damages, and $798.53 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 (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’s CIV-100 form (filed April 17, 2024) requests $798.53 in costs.  Plaintiff’s JUD-100 form (filed November 29, 2023) requests $768.53 in costs.  Plaintiff should modify one or both of the forms to make the cost requests consistent. 

          In addition, Plaintiff should provide the cost information requested in Section 7 of Plaintiff’s CIV-100 form. 

          Plaintiff should also submit a copy of the statement of damages served on Defendant on July 17, 2023.  The statement of damages will allow the Court to determine whether Plaintiff put Defendant on notice of the damages Plaintiff is requesting. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES without prejudice the application of Plaintiff Carmen Erazo for default judgment filed on April 17, 2024. 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.