Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV00826, Date: 2024-12-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23PSCV00826 Hearing Date: December 17, 2024 Dept: 6
Plaintiff Sergio Urtez’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment
Defendant: Felipe Garcia, individually and dba Garcias Concrete
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
This is a construction dispute. On March 20, 2023, plaintiff Sergio Urtez (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant Felipe Garcia, individually and dba Garcias Concrete (Defendant) and Does 1 to 50, alleging causes of action for breach of contract, negligence, and disgorgement of construction funds.
On October 8, 2024, default was entered against Defendant.
On November 14, 2024, Plaintiff submitted a default judgment package.
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
Plaintiff seeks default judgment against Defendants in the total amount of $161,330.37, including $160,000.00 in damages and $1,330.37 in costs. The Court finds Plaintiff’s default judgment package contains some defects. First, the declaration from Plaintiff’s counsel is in support of an application for publication of summons, and provides no information or evidence in support of the request for entry of default judgment. (See generally Forberg Decl. (11/14/24); Johnson v. Stanhiser (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 357, 361 [a defaulting defendant admits only the well-pleaded facts concerning liability; the plaintiff must still introduce admissible prima facie evidence of damages].)
Second, the principal damage amounts requested between the Request for Entry of Default Judgment and Proposed Judgment conflict with each other, with the former seeking $160,000.00 and the latter seeking $128,700.00. (CIV-100, ¶ 2, subd. (a); JUD-100, ¶ 6, subd. (a)(1).)
Third, the maximum amount of damages alleged in the complaint is $128,700.00, so Plaintiff may not seek any principal damages greater than that. (Compl., ¶ 27.) Relief awarded in a default judgment cannot exceed the amount demanded in the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 585; Paterra v. Hansen (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 507, 536; Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 826.) “Procedural due process requires ‘that a defendant be given notice of the existence of a lawsuit and notice of the specific relief which is sought in the complaint served upon him. The logic underlying this principle is simple: a defendant who has been served with a lawsuit has the right, in view of the relief which the complainant is seeking from him, to decide not to appear and defend. However, a defendant is not in a position to make such a decision if he or she has not been given full notice.’ [Citation.]” (Yu v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 1024, 1031.) .) “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; see also Becker v. S.P.V. Constr. Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 489, 494 [“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]”.) Thus, “a default judgment greater than the amount specifically demanded is void as beyond the [trial] court's jurisdiction.” (Id. quoting Greenup, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 826.)
Fourth, Plaintiff’s counsel did not sign any of the signature blocks in the Request for Entry of Default Judgment. (CIV-100, ¶¶ 3, 6, 7.)
CONCLUSION