Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: BC18441, Date: 2023-10-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC18441 Hearing Date: October 2, 2023 Dept: 28
Having considered the documents submitted in support of a default judgment, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On August 22, 2018, Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Auto Club (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Lynn Aeja Guerre (“Guerre”), Alicia Aleice Fisher (“Fisher”), and Does 1-100 for subrogation and indebtedness. The complaint demanded $41,429.85.
On February 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed proofs of service showing proof of substituted service of the summons, complaint, statement of damages, and other documents on Fisher and Guerre on February 13, 2019.
On March 26, 2019, Guerre filed an answer and a cross-complaint for indemnity, apportionment, and contribution against Cross-Defendants Fisher, Jed Onderwyzer, and Roes 1-25.
On July 25, 2019, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Jed Onder Wyzer as Doe 1.
On February 24, 2020, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice. On October 29, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the default with respect to Plaintiff’s claims against Fisher and Onderwyzer, conditioned on Plaintiff filing the proof of serve of the motion. On February 25, 2021, the Court confirmed that Plaintiff had filed the proof of service.
On February 8, 2021, the Court dismissed the Doe defendants without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On August 30, 2021, the Court dismissed Onderwyzer and Fisher from Guerre’s cross-complaint without prejudice.
On November 29, 2022, the Court entered Fisher’s default on the complaint.
On January 27, 2023, the Court dismissed Jed Onder Wyzer from the complaint without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On May 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed a request for Court judgment against Fisher to be heard on October 2, 2023.
On May 23, 2023, the Court dismissed Guerre from the complaint without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
No trial date is currently scheduled.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Plaintiff requests that the Court enter a default judgment against Defendant Alicia Aleice Fisher and award Plaintiff $41,956.85, consisting of $41,429.85 as the demand of the complaint, $0.00 in prejudgment interest, $0.00 in attorney’s fees, and $527.00 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: Procedure), 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 on 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.)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff has submitted a completed default judgment packet with all applicable attachments. The Court grants the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Auto Club’s application for default judgment filed on May 1, 2023. The Court enters judgment of $41,956.85 against Defendant Alicia Aleice Fisher.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.