Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV02825, Date: 2024-04-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23PSCV02825 Hearing Date: April 11, 2024 Dept: 6
Plaintiff California Casualty Indemnity Exchange’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment
Defendant: Michael Harrison
COURT’S RULING
Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
This is an insurance subrogation action arising out of an auto accident. On September 13, 2023, plaintiff California Casualty Indemnity Exchange (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant Michael Harrison (Defendant) and Does 1 through 100, alleging two causes of action for subrogation claim and indebtedness.
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 proposed form of judgment; (6) 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; (7) exhibits as necessary; and (8) 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 $42,385.45, including $41,835.00 in damages, $0.00 in interest, $0.00 in attorney fees, and $550.45 in costs. The Court finds a few issues with Plaintiff’s default judgment package. First, the documents submitted in support of the damages request do not clearly add up to the amount Plaintiff seeks. Plaintiff claims $29,200.00 in uninsured medical benefits, but provided no medical bills or proof of payment of such bills. (See Webb Decl., ¶ 9, Exs. 1-3.) The vehicle repair documents appear to be comprised largely, if not solely, of estimates for repairs rather than payment receipts. (See Id.) Also, while Exhibit 3 might possibly provide some of the missing information, it is hard to read, as much of the numbers’ portion of that exhibit is very faint. (See Id., Ex. 3.)
CONCLUSION