Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV01624, Date: 2024-08-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23PSCV01624 Hearing Date: August 28, 2024 Dept: 6
Plaintiff
Jennifer De La Pena’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment
Defendants: Code 4 Towing & Roadside Assistance, LLC, Alex Daniel Moreno, Lorena Molina, and Randy Carlos Moreno
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice as to Defendants CODE 4 and Randy Carlos Moreno and DENIED with prejudice as to Defendants Alex Daniel Moreno and Lorena Molina. The Court will enter judgment in favor of Defendants Alex Daniel Moreno and Lorena Molina.
BACKGROUND
This is a personal injury action. On May 31, 2023, plaintiff Jennifer De La Pena (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant Code 4 Towing & Roadside Assistance, LLC (Code 4) and Does 1 to 50, alleging the sole cause of action for motor vehicle. On October 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed Doe amendments naming Lorena Molina, Alex Daniel Moreno, and Randy Carlos Moreno as defendants to this action. On March 22, 2024, default was entered against all of the Defendants. On August 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed 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 $317,479.63, including $216,625.00 in special damages, $100,000.00 in general damages, and $854.63 in costs. The Court notes a few issues with the default judgment package. First, Plaintiff did not submit any exhibits supporting the amount of medical expenses purportedly incurred, nor did Plaintiff submit any exhibits supporting the amount of future medical expenses Plaintiff anticipates incurring. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subds. (a)(2), (a)(8); Code Civ. Proc., § 585, subd. (b) [“the court shall hear the evidence offered by the plaintiff and shall render judgment in the plaintiff’s favor for that relief, not exceeding the amount stated in the complaint… as appears by the evidence to be just.”]) While liability is admitted on default, proof is still required to support the damages requested. (Carlsen v. Koivumaki (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 879, 898.)
Second, the amount of pain and suffering damages Plaintiff seeks are excessive. $100,000.00 is six times the $16,625.00 purportedly incurred in medical expenses. (See Statements of Damages (8/15/24).)
Third, it is well settled that corporate directors and officers cannot be held vicariously liable for the corporation's torts in which they do not participate. Their liability, if any, stems from their own tortious conduct, not from their status as directors or officers of the enterprise. (See United States Liab. Ins. Co. v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 586, 595.) “[An] officer or director will not be liable for torts in which he does not personally participate, of which he has no knowledge, or to which he has not consented. . . . While the corporation itself may be liable for such acts, the individual officer or director will be immune unless he authorizes, directs, or in some meaningful sense actively participates in the wrongful conduct." (Frances T. v. Village Green Owners Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 490, 503-504 [citation omitted].)
Here, there are no facts alleged in the complaint and no evidence to support liability as to individual defendants Alex Daniel Moreno, Lorena Molina, and Randy Carlos Moreno in their capacity as officers of Defendant CODE 4. (See Complaint and Summary of Case, pgs. 1:26-2:2.) Thus, the individual defendants cannot be liable simply because they are officers of CODE 4. Therefore, the Court DENIES the request for entry of default judgment as to Defendants Alex Daniel Moreno and Lorena Molina with prejudice and enter judgment in their favor. The Court DENIES the request for entry of default judgment as to Randy Carlos Moreno without prejudice.
Fourth, the proof of service of the summons and complaint on Code 4 was never signed by the process server. (Proof of Service (7/3/23).) It is unclear why the clerk’s office permitted entry of default as to Code 4. Plaintiff needs to submit an amended proof of service of the summons and complaint as to Code 4 or the default will be set aside.
CONCLUSION