Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: BC690551, Date: 2023-09-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC690551 Hearing Date: March 6, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the documents submitted in support of default judgments, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On January 19, 2018, Plaintiff Walter Moore (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Bionicos Genesis, Inc. (“Bionicos”) and Does 1-25 for negligence and premises liability.
On September 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.
On July 3, 2019, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendants Jesus Rodriguez as Doe 1 (“Rodriguez”) and Rosie Quezada as Doe 2 (“Quezada”).
On August 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed a statement of damages sought against Bionicos. The proof of service was not filled out.
On September 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed proofs of service showing personal service on Rodriguez and Quezada on September 19, 2019, of a statement of damages sought against Rodriguez.
On October 7, 2019, the clerk entered default against Bionicos.
On January 30, 2020, the clerk entered the defaults of Rodriguez and Quezada.
On May 18, 2020, Plaintiff amended the complaint to add Defendant Alan’s Jugos as Doe 3.
On June 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing substituted service of a statement of damages on Alan’s Jugos on June 2, 2020.
On March 30, 2021, the Court denied the motion to vacate default filed by Rodriguez and Quezada.
On July 7, 2021, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a declaration stating that on November 7, 2018, Plaintiff sub-served a statement of damages on Bionicos by serving the Registered Agent for Service of Process, Jesus Rodriguez.
On July 15, 2021, the Court dismissed Does 3-25 without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On October 26, 2021, the Court dismissed Alan’s Jugos without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On April 11, 2022, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice. On June 28, 2022, the Court vacated the dismissal.
On April 3, 2023, the Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice. On July 17, 2023, the Court vacated the dismissal.
On October 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed a request for Court judgment against Bionicos. On October 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed a request for Court judgment against Rodriguez.
On November 13, 2023, the clerk entered Quezada’s default. On December 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed a request for Court judgment against Quezada.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter a default judgment against Defendant Rosie Quezada and award Plaintiff $1,234,220.00, consisting of $1,000,000.00 in general damages, $229,939.00 in special damages, and $4,281.00 in costs.
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter a default judgment against Defendant Bionicos Genesis, Inc. and award Plaintiff $1,234,220.00, consisting of $1,000,000.00 in general damages, $229,939.00 in special damages, and $4,281.00 in costs.
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter a default judgment against Defendant Jesus Rodriguez and award Plaintiff $1,234,220.00, consisting of $1,000,000.00 in general damages, $229,939.00 in special damages, and $4,281.00 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
“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.)
Plaintiff’s CIV-100 forms for Bionicos, Rodriguez, and Quezada request interest of “7%” but do not provide a dollar amount. Plaintiff must calculate the interest and provide a declaration explaining the calculation of the interest amounts. Unlike the CIV-100 forms, the JUD-100 forms do not request prejudgment interest. The forms should be consistent.
Plaintiff must submit a separate declaration supporting each default judgment packet if Plaintiff wishes to obtain three separate judgments rather than one judgment, jointly and severally, against all three defendants.
When Plaintiff submits revised applications, Plaintiff should summarize and list Plaintiff’s medical expenses to allow the Court to verify Plaintiff’s special damages.
Plaintiff should also submit a copy of the statement of damages served on Quezada.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Plaintiff Walter Moore’s application for default judgment against Defendant Bionicos Genesis, Inc. filed on October 6, 2023 without prejudice.
The Court DENIES Plaintiff Walter Moore’s application for default judgment against Defendant Jesus Rodriguez filed on October 11, 2023 without prejudice.
The Court DENIES Plaintiff Walter Moore’s application for default judgment against Defendant Rosie Quezada filed on December 21, 2023 without prejudice.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.