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

BACKGROUND 

On January 24, 2023, Plaintiff Jacqueline Garcia filed this action against Defendants Manuel Guana Prado, Rosa Trujillo (“Rosa Trujillo”), Christopher Martinez (“Christopher Martinez”), Ramon Guana (“Ramon Guana”), Richard Guana, Rosa Guana (“Rosa Guano”), Giovanny Martinez (“Giovanny Martinez”), Sara Trujillo (“Sara Trujillo”), and Does 1-25 for negligence.  

On October 31, 2023, the clerk entered Ramon Guana’s default. 

On June 21, 2024, the Court dismissed Defendants Manuel Guana Prado and Richard Guana without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. 

On July 9, 2024, the Court granted Ramon Guana’s motion to quash service of summons and set aside the October 31, 2023 default.  On November 1, 2024, Ramon Guana filed an answer. 

On January 21, 2025, the clerk entered the defaults of Rosa Trujillo, Christopher Martinez, Rosa Guana, Giovanny Martinez, and Sara Trujillo.  

On January 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed an application for default judgment against Rosa Trujillo, Christopher Martinez, Rosa Guana, Giovanny Martinez, and Sara Trujillo (“Defendants”). 

On January 31, 2025, the Court dismissed Ramon Guana with prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. 

PARTY’S REQUESTS 

Plaintiff asks the Court to enter a default judgment against Defendants and award Plaintiff $684,417.00, consisting of $ 32,932.00 in special damages, $650,000.00 in general damages, and $1,485.00 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 

A.   Doe defendants 

Plaintiff has not dismissed or applied for separate judgment against the Doe defendants.  (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a)(7).) 

B.   Sara Trujillo 

On January 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a statement of damages sought against Sara Trujillo.  The attached proof of service was defective and did not support entry of default.  (See Notice of Rejection dated January 10, 2024.)  

On March 13, 2024, Plaintiff re-filed the statement of damages with a proof of service showing substituted service on November 5, 2023.  However, the statement of damages listed the defendant’s name as “Sara Turjillo” (not Sara Trujillo).  This statement of damages did not give Sara Trujillo notice of the damages sought against her. 

Because Sara Trujillo did not receive proper notice of the damages sought against her before the clerk entered her default, the Court vacates the January 21, 2025 entry of default against Sara Trujillo.  The Court also denies Plaintiff’s application for default judgment against Sara Trujillo. 

C.   Rosa Trujillo 

On January 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a statement of damages sought against Rosa Trujillo.  The attached proof of service was defective and did not support entry of default.  (See Notice of Rejection dated January 10, 2024.)  

On March 13, 2024, Plaintiff re-filed the statement of damages with a proof of service showing substituted service on November 5, 2023.  However, the statement of damages listed the defendant’s name as “Rosa Turjillo” (not Rosa Trujillo).  This statement of damages did not give Rosa Trujillo notice of the damages sought against her. 

Because Rosa Trujillo did not receive proper notice of the damages sought against her before the clerk entered her default, the Court vacates the January 21, 2025 entry of default against Rosa Trujillo. The Court also denies Plaintiff’s application for default judgment against Rosa Trujillo. 

D.   Christopher Martinez 

On January 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a statement of damages sought against Christopher Martinez.  The attached proof of service was defective and did not support entry of default.  (See Notice of Rejection dated January 10, 2024.)  

On March 13, 2024, Plaintiff re-filed the statement of damages with a proof of service showing substituted service on November 5, 2023.  However, the statement of damages listed the defendant’s name as “Christpher Martinez” (not Christopher Martinez).  This statement of damages did not give Christopher Martinez notice of the damages sought against him. 

Because Christopher Martinez did not receive proper notice of the damages sought against him before the clerk entered his default, the Court vacates the January 21, 2025 entry of default against Christopher Martinez. The Court also denies Plaintiff’s application for default judgment against Christopher Martinez. 

E.   Giovanni Martinez and Rosa Guana 

On January 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed statements of damages sought against Giovanni Martinez and Rosa Guana.  The attached proofs of service were defective and did not support entry of default.  (See Notice of Rejection dated January 10, 2024.) 

On March 13, 2024, Plaintiff re-filed the statements of damages sought against Giovanni Martinez and Rosa Guana with proofs of service showing substituted service on November 5, 2023.  The statements of damages listed $650,000.00 for pain, suffering, and inconvenience, $2,932.00 for medical expenses to date, $30,000.00 for future medical expenses (present value), and $1,485.00 in costs. 

Although Plaintiff has presented a prima facie case supporting an award of general damages, Plaintiff’s evidence does not support an award of $650,000.00 in general damages. 

In addition, Plaintiff requests $2,932.00 for medical expenses to date, consisting of separate charges of $1,132.00 and $1,800.00.  However, Plaintiff’s supporting papers show that Medi-Cal paid the charge for $1,132.00 and has agreed to accept reimbursement of $849.00.  Therefore, the request for medical expenses to date should be reduced accordingly. 

The Court denies the applications of Giovanni Martinez and Rosa Guana for default judgment without prejudice. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff Jacqueline Garcia’s application for default judgment against Defendant Sara Trujillo and VACATES the default entered against Defendant Sara Trujillo on January 21, 2025. 

The Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff Jacqueline Garcia’s application for default judgment against Defendant Rosa Trujillo and VACATES the default entered against Defendant Rosa Trujillo on January 21, 2025. 

The Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff Jacqueline Garcia’s application for default judgment against Defendant Christopher Martinez and VACATES the default entered against Defendant Christopher Martinez on January 21, 2025. 

The Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff Jacqueline Garcia’s application for default judgment against Defendant Giovanni Martinez. 

The Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff Jacqueline Garcia’s application for default judgment against Defendant Rosa Guana. 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.