Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV11502, Date: 2024-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV11502    Hearing Date: January 24, 2024    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND 

On May 22, 2023, Plaintiff Maidia Leola Stillitano (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Juventina Acosta Funez (“Acosta”), Jorge Hernandez (“Hernandez”), and Does 1-25 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence. 

On June 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed proofs of service showing substituted service on Acosta and Hernandez of the summons, complaint, statement of damages, and other documents on May 31, 2023.  On July 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed amended proofs of service. 

On July 24, 2023, the clerk entered Acosta’s and Hernandez’s defaults. 

On November 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed a request for Court judgment to be heard on January 24, 2024. 

On December 5, 2023, the Court dismissed the Doe defendants without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. 

PARTY’S REQUEST 

Plaintiff Maidia Leola Stillitano requests that the Court enter a default judgment against Defendants Juventina Acosta Funez and Jorge Hernandez and award Plaintiff $321,421.70, consisting of $250,000.00 in general damages, $70,831.29 in special damages, $0.00 in prejudgment interest, $0.00 in attorney’s fees, and $590.41 in costs.

LEGAL STANDARD 

“[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).) 

          “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 

Section 8 of Plaintiff’s CIV-100 form, the declaration of nonmilitary status, states only that “Defendant indicated she was not a US resident and did not have a license.”  Plaintiff is seeking judgment against two defendants.  Plaintiff has not provided a declaration of nonmilitary status for Hernandez. 

Plaintiff has filed proof of service of statements of damages on both defendants but has not submitted copies of the statements of damages to the Court. Plaintiff should submit copies of the statements of damages to enable the Court to confirm that the damages Plaintiff is seeking in the request for default judgment do not exceed the amounts listed in the statements of damages. 

Plaintiff requests $70,831.29 in special damages.  According to Plaintiff, this amount includes $15,654.09 in medical expenses, $25,117.20 in lost wages, $20,000.00 in future medical expenses, and $10,000.00 future lost earnings.  (When these amounts are added together, the total is $60.00 less than $70,831.29, the amount of special damages Plaintiff requests.)  However, Plaintiff has not provided evidence supporting the amounts she is requesting for future medical expenses and future lost earnings. 

The Court denies the motion without prejudice. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES Plaintiff Maidia Leola Stillitano’s application for default judgment filed on November 29, 2023 without prejudice. 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.