Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV00876, Date: 2024-04-19 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23PSCV00876 Hearing Date: April 19, 2024 Dept: 6
Plaintiff Vanessa E. Garcia’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment
Defendants: Roman Aguilar, Marian Hardy
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
This is a personal injury action. On March 24, 2023, plaintiff Vanessa E. Garcia (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Roman Aguilar (Aguilar), Marian Hardy (Hardy) (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 through 20, alleging one cause of action for negligence. On December 7, 2023, default was entered against Defendants. On March 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default judgment against Defendants.
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) a 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 $107,559.30, including $6,902.00 in special damages, $100,000.00 in general damages, $0.00 in interest, $0.00 in attorney fees, and $657.30 in costs. The Court finds a few problems with Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment. First, Plaintiff did not submit a copy of the Statement of Damages served on Defendant. The Court may not grant relief in a default judgment that exceeds the relief demanded in the complaint or statement of damages. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 580(a)-(c); Paterra v. Hansen (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 507, 536; Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 826.) Second, Plaintiff’s request for $100,000.00 in general damages is almost 14 ½ times Plaintiff’s special damages request of $6,902.00. Thus, the Court finds Plaintiff’s general damage request excessive. The Court also finds that Plaintiff’s proffered evidence of future pain and suffering contains very little information to support the request for general damages, instead only stating that Plaintiff has some anxiety. (Garcia Decl., p. 4.) Based on the evidence submitted, the Court finds $20,000.00 as fair and reasonable general damages for Plaintiff’s pain and suffering. Third, the damages cannot be jointly and severally allocated between the Defendants because Defendant Aguilar, as the owner of the subject vehicle, is limited to $15,000.00 in damages. (Vehicle Code, §§ 17150, 17151; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a)(7).)
Fourth, the declaration of Joshua Reyes provides little information for the Court to assess whether he has personal knowledge to authenticate and lay the foundation for the exhibits attached to his declaration. (Evid. Code, § 702; Johnson v. Stanhiser (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 357, 361-362 [while a default admits the material allegations of the complaint, the plaintiff must still present evidence to establish prima facie case].) Fifth, Plaintiff did not dismiss the Doe defendants. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a)(7).)
CONCLUSION