Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 22PSCV00471, Date: 2024-08-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22PSCV00471 Hearing Date: August 26, 2024 Dept: 6
Plaintiff David Guzman’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment
Defendant: Dean Edward Hines, Estate of Lila Lee Hines
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
This is a breach of contract case. On May 17, 2022, plaintiff David Guzman (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Dean Edward Hines (Dean), Estate of Lila Lee Hines (Estate) (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 through 50, alleging causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the implied warranty of good faith and fair dealing, intentional misrepresentation, and declaratory relief. On September 26, 2023 and November 16, 2023, default was entered against Defendant Dean and Defendant Estate, respectively. On August 14, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed the Doe Defendants. On August 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed a statement of case and proposed judgment.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 585 permits entry of a default judgment after a party has failed to timely respond or appear. (Code Civ. Proc., § 585.) A party seeking judgment on the default by the court must file a Request for Court Judgment, and: (1) a brief summary of the case; (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) declaration of nonmilitary status; (6) a proposed form of judgment; (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment 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 attorneys’ fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800.)
ANALYSIS
Based on the proposed Judgment, Plaintiff seeks default judgment against Defendants in the total amount of $872,025.00, including $720,000.00 in damages, $144,000.00 in interest, $7,500.00 in attorney fees, and $525.00 in costs. The Court finds Plaintiff has failed to submit sufficient evidence to support the request for entry of default judgment and has otherwise failed to comply with the requirements for a default judgment. First, Plaintiff failed to comply with the majority of the requirements for Rule 3.1800 of the California Rules of Court, such as submitting the Request for Entry of Default Judgment on Form CIV-100, and providing other documents such as supporting declarations, interest computations, a memorandum of costs and disbursements, a declaration of nonmilitary status for Defendants, and exhibits as necessary. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800.)
Second, Plaintiff’s principal damage request grossly exceeds the amount requested in the complaint. The prayer for relief in the complaint only requests damages “according to proof,” (Compl., p. 11, ln. 26), but otherwise only mentions having paid a deposit of $5,000.00, (Compl., ¶ 14, 26). Thus, Plaintiff could be limited to $5,000.00 in damages. “[A] prayer for damages according to proof passes muster under section 580 only if a specific amount of damages is alleged in the body of the complaint. [Citation.]” (Becker v. S.P.V. Constr. Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 489, 494.) However, the Second Cause of Action in the complaint alleges that “…Plaintiff is entitled to the costs for payment from present for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in an amount according to proof in excess of the minimum for unlimited jurisdiction of this Court.” (Compl., ¶ 54.)
“The purpose of [Code of Civil Procedure] section 580 is to require the plaintiff to provide notice of the maximum amount of the defendant's potential liability.” (Electronic Funds Solutions, LLC v. Murphy (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1174.) Here, Plaintiff’s complaint, however, seeks damages in an amount in excess of the unlimited jurisdiction, which in 2022 was $25,000.01. Rather than giving defendants notice of their maximum liability, Plaintiff’s complaint instead purports to provide notice of their minimum liability. Other than stating that damages will be at least $25,000.00, the minimum jurisdictional limit for an unlimited civil case, Defendants have no better notice than pleadings which seek “damages according to proof.” (Id.; see also Becker v. S.P.V. Construction Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 489, 494.) Indeed, nothing in the complaint would give Defendants any reason to suspect that a default judgment could be entered for damages of $720,000.00. Thus, any default judgment in this case may be limited to compensatory damages of $5,000.00 or $25,000.01, depending on which cause of action is proven.
Third, Plaintiff had not provided the basis for the recovery of attorney’s fees. The subject contract appears to predicate recovery of attorney fees on the parties having first attempted mediation. (Compl., Ex. A, ¶ 22, subd. (A), ¶ 25.) Plaintiff has not provided any evidence of having first attempted mediation before bringing this lawsuit or of Defendant’s refusal to mediate after a request has been made. Plaintiff also has not presented any evidence supporting the amount of attorney fees requested. (See Local Rule 3.214.)
Fourth, it is unclear to what extent Defendant Estate is liable to Plaintiff under the subject contract, as only Defendant Dean signed the contract and it does not state that it was signed in any representative capacity on behalf of the Estate. (Compl., Ex. A.)
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.