Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV02702, Date: 2025-04-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23PSCV02702 Hearing Date: April 21, 2025 Dept: 6
Plaintiff
Bertoldo 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.
On March 17, 2025, Plaintiff submitted a request for entry of default 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
Plaintiff seeks default judgment against Defendants in the total amount of $5,537,443.90, including $2,179,622.46 in special damages, $3,292,933.23 in general damages, $62,756.24 in interest, and $2,071.97 in costs. The Court finds some issues with the default judgment package. First, Plaintiff’s damage calculations do not add up and are not supported by the evidence. (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”]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subds. (a)(2), (a)(8).) In the context of a request for court judgment by default, evidence to establish liability is not required since a defendant’s failure to answer the complaint admits the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint, and no further proof of liability is required. (Carlsen v. Koivumaki (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 879, 883.) However, proof of damages is still required. (Id. at p. 884.) Here, Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration indicates $997,664.41 in total medical expenses, but the document entitled “Memorandum of Costs in Support of Application for Entry of Default Judgment Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 585” only lists $61,013.31 in medical expenses, i.e., a difference of $936,651.10. (Memorandum of Costs (3/17/25), pp. 1-3 of pdf; Gutierrez Decl., ¶ 6, subd. (a).) Plaintiff provided no documentary evidence supporting his future medical care estimate, loss of earnings calculation, or loss of future earning capacity calculation. (See Gutierrez Decl., ¶ 6, subd. (a).)
Second, Plaintiff’s claims here are brought under Labor Code section 3706. (Compl., ¶ 13.) Plaintiff’s declaration indicates that only Defendant Interchange failed to secure workers' compensation insurance. (Altamirano Decl., ¶ 7.) It is therefore unclear how Defendant Vasquez could be liable under Labor Code section 3706, which premises the ability to bring what is essentially a workers’ compensation claim in civil court against the employer due to the employer’s failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance. (Lab. Code, § 3706; see also Molen v. Friedman (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1153 [“a default only admits the well pleaded allegations of the complaint and, where those allegations do not state a cause of action or contain all elements essential to support the demand for relief, the judgment is void as to such matters”]; see also Grappo v. McMills (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 996, 1013 [new evidence introduced at default judgment but not pleaded in complaint operates as an amendment to the complaint and opens the default].)
Third, the Court does not find that Plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence to support general damages of $3,292,993.23. (Gutierrez Decl., ¶ 6, subd. (b); Altamirano Decl., ¶ 9.)
Fourth, given the above mentioned damage calculation problems, Plaintiff’s prejudgment interest calculation is also inadequately supported. (Gutierrez Decl., ¶ 6, subd. (c).)
Fifth, Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment does not include attorney fees. (CIV-100 (3/17/25), ¶ 2, subd. (d).) However, Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration lists attorney fees in the amount of $166,123,317.00. (Gutierrez Decl., ¶ 6, subd. (f).) It is unclear how Plaintiff’s counsel calculated this amount, which far exceeds the amount of Plaintiff’s requested damages. Also, this amount clearly exceeds the default attorney fee schedule under Local Rule 3.214, and Plaintiff’s counsel did not provide any evidence or explanation in his declaration justifying the amount requested over the amount provided under Local Rule 3.214. (See Local Rule 3.214; Gutierrez Decl., ¶ 6, subd. (f).)
Sixth, Plaintiff submitted the request for entry of default judgment on two forms, which could raise issues regarding a several and separate judgment. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a)(7); Code Civ. Proc., § 579.) The Court also notes that Plaintiff requested both a court judgment and a clerk’s judgment on these forms. (CIV-100, (3/17/25), ¶ 1, subds. (d)-(e).)
Seventh, the memorandums of costs on Form CIV-100 list the incorrect total of costs. (CIV-100 (3/17/25), ¶ 7, subd. (e).)
CONCLUSION