Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV02702, Date: 2024-06-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23PSCV02702 Hearing Date: June 13, 2024 Dept: 6
Plaintiff
Bertold Altamirano’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment
Defendants: Interchange Pallet Solutions and Hugo Vasquez
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
This is a negligence case involving workers compensation issues. On September 1, 2023, plaintiff Bertoldo Altamirano (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Interchange Pallet Solutions (Interchange), Hugo Vasquez (Vasquez) (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 through 10, alleging causes of action for negligence pursuant to Labor Code section 3706 and negligence.
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 $9,728,669.91, including $2,745,639.20 in special damages, $4,146,932.07 in general damages, $78,319.83 in interest, $2,756,988.51 in attorney fees, and $890.30 in costs. The Court finds multiple problems with Plaintiff’s default judgment request. First, the statements of damages appear to have been served on Defendants on April 9, 2024, but default was entered two days later on April 11, 2024. (Declarations of Diligence, Proofs of Service (4/11/24).) That is not sufficient time between service of the statements of damages and the request for entry of default. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 425.11; Plotitsa v. Superior Court (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 755, 761 [default cannot be entered until 30 days after service of Statement of Damages]; but see Schwab v. Rondel Homes, Inc. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 428, 435 [“A defendant is entitled to actual notice of the liability to which he or she may be subjected, a reasonable period of time before default may be entered.”])
Second, the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel is insufficient to support the amount of damages claimed. (Gutierrez Decl., ¶ 6.) These are just numbers without any documentary evidence to support them, and also lack foundation. Plaintiff must support his damage claim with admissible evidence. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subds. (a)(2), (a)(8); Johnson v. Stanhiser (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 357, 361 [the plaintiff must present evidence sufficient to support a prima facie case for damages].)
Third, Plaintiff did not properly complete the declaration regarding nonmilitary status. Plaintiff simply put “unknown.” (Request for Entry of Default Judgment, ¶ 8, subd. (f).)
Fourth, Plaintiff did not submit a proposed judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a).)
Fifth, Plaintiff did not provide enough information regarding the prejudgment interest calculation, namely the date the damages became certain and the end date for that calculation. (Civ. Code, § 3287, subd. (a); see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a)(3).) Moreover, the prejudgment interest rate for tort damages is 7% per year, not 10%. (Cal. Const., Art. XV, § 1; Civ. Code, § 3287, subd. (c).)
Sixth, the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel attempts to add the $435.00 case initiation fee, but that amount is not included in the memorandum of costs. (Request for Entry of Default Judgment, ¶ 7; Gutierrez Decl., ¶ 6, subd. (d).)
Finally, Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees does not comply with Local Rule 3.214, which provides the formula for determining attorney’s fees based on a default judgment. (See Gutierrez Decl., ¶ 6, subd. (e); Local Rule 3.214.)
CONCLUSION