Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 24PSCV01096, Date: 2024-12-19 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24PSCV01096 Hearing Date: December 19, 2024 Dept: 6
Plaintiff
ARC California Escrow, Inc.’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment
Defendant: Christopher Montoya
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
This is a fraud and conversion case. On April 5, 2024, plaintiff ARC California Escrow, Inc. (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Chris Montoya, an individual also known as Christopher Montoya (Montoya), Firefighters First Federal Credit Union (Firefighters), and Does 1 through 50, alleging causes of action for conversion, fraud, violation of Penal Code § 496, accounting, imposition of constructive trust, claim and delivery, and injunctive relief.
On June 3, 2024, default was entered against Montoya.
On November 25, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed Firefighters and the Doe defendants from this action without prejudice. On the same date, Plaintiff requested entry of default judgment against Montoya.
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 Montoya in the total amount of $30,671.60, including $30,000.00 in damages and $671.60 in costs. The Court finds Plaintiff’s default judgment package defective, as it is not does not contain any documentary evidence supporting the $30,000.00 in damages requested. (See 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 evidence is not needed to establish liability in the context of a default judgment because liability is admitted on default, Plaintiff still needs to present evidence to establish the amount of damages sought. (Carlsen v. Koivumaki (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 879, 883-884.) Plaintiff’s declaration only provides a general summary of hours worked in connection with this matter and a lump sum of $30,000.00, and contains no hourly rates or documentary evidence supporting the amount of hours purportedly expended on this matter. (Baiseri Decl., ¶ 9.)
Moreover, the complaint does not allege Plaintiff incurred $30,000.00 in incidental or other damages as a result of Montoya’s conduct. The only damage amounts alleged in this action were the $245,642.71 wrongfully deposited into Montoya’s account, which Plaintiff appears to have recovered since Plaintiff is not requesting recovery of those funds. (See generally, Baiseri Decl.) The Court cannot award damages not alleged or demanded in the complaint. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 585, subd. (b); Paterra v. Hansen (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 507, 536; Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 826.)
“Procedural due process requires ‘that a defendant be given notice of the existence of a lawsuit and notice of the specific relief which is sought in the complaint served upon him. The logic underlying this principle is simple: a defendant who has been served with a lawsuit has the right, in view of the relief which the complainant is seeking from him, to decide not to appear and defend. However, a defendant is not in a position to make such a decision if he or she has not been given full notice.’ [Citation.]” (Yu v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 1024, 1031.) .) “The purpose of [Code of Civil Procedure] section 580 is to require the plaintiff to provide notice of the maximum amount of the defendant's potential liability.” (Electronic Funds Solutions, LLC v. Murphy (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1174; see also Becker v. S.P.V. Constr. Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 489, 494 [“a prayer for damages according to proof passes muster under section 580 only if a specific amount of damages is alleged in the body of the complaint. [Citation]”.) Thus, “a default judgment greater than the amount specifically demanded is void as beyond the [trial] court's jurisdiction.” (Id. quoting Greenup, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 826.) Since, the Complaint does not allege the additional damages of $30,000, Plaintiff cannot recover such damages in a default judgment.
CONCLUSION