Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV10360, Date: 2024-02-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV10360    Hearing Date: February 2, 2024    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND 

On May 9, 2023, Plaintiff California Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Keveta Redd (“Defendant”) and Does 1-20 for auto negligence – subrogation.  The complaint sought $26,772.78 in damages. 

On September 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing substituted service of the summons, complaint, and other documents on Defendant on May 22, 2023. 

On September 21, 2023, the clerk entered Defendant’s default. 

On December 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a request for Court judgment to be heard on February 2, 2024. 

On December 15, 2023, the Court dismissed the Doe defendants without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. 

PARTY’S REQUEST 

Plaintiff California Automobile Insurance Company asks the Court to enter a default judgment against Defendant Keveta Redd and award Plaintiff $27,313.07, consisting of $26,772.78 as the demand of the complaint and $540.29 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 

          “Where 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 (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; see Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 5:258, p. 5-70.) 

DISCUSSION 

An application for default judgment under Code of Civil Procedure sections 585, subdivisions (a), (b), or (c), or section 586, “shall include an affidavit stating that a copy of the application has been mailed to the defendant’s attorney of record or, if none, to the defendant at his or her last known address and the date on which the copy was mailed.  If no such address of the defendant is known to the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s attorney, the affidavit shall state that fact.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 587; see Bae v. T.D. Service Co. of Arizona (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 89, 108, fn. 15 (Bae) ["appellate courts and treatises have interpreted the phrase ‘application ... for entry of default’ in Code of Civil Procedure section 587 to include applications for entry of a default judgment”].) 

Consistent with Code of Civil Procedure section 587, “a party applying for a default judgment is required to use a form document that includes a declaration that the completed form has been mailed to the defendant’s counsel of record [or defendant if he or she does not have counsel].” (Bae, supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 106, citing Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a); Judicial Council Form No. CIV-100; 6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Proceedings Without Trial, § 164, p. 605.) 

          In Bae, the Court of Appeal rejected the appellant’s argument that it was not obligated to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 587 in seeking a default judgment.  Interpreting the statutory language, the appellate court conclude that the affidavit requirement was “mandatory” but not “jurisdictional,” meaning that failure to comply with the requirement does not support setting aside a default or default judgment “absent a suitable showing of prejudice.”  (Bae, supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 107.)  The court found the respondent had established prejudice because it was unaware of the default proceedings and believed no default judgment could be entered against it based on its declaration of nonmonetary status.  (Ibid.; see Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 5:187, p. 5-50 [“Failure to provide this notice may entitle defendant to set aside the default judgment”].) 

          Based on these authorities, the Court concludes that Plaintiff was required to submit an affidavit stating that a copy of the application for default judgment had been mailed to Defendant.  Plaintiff included such an affidavit in its September 21, 2023 application for default but omitted the affidavit from its December 13, 2023 application for default judgment. 

          The Court denies the application for default judgment without prejudice. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES Plaintiff California Automobile Insurance Company’s application for default judgment filed on December 13, 2023 without prejudice. 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.