Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 22STCV30200, Date: 2025-02-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV30200    Hearing Date: February 19, 2025    Dept: I

The court has received objections to the Proposed Statement of Decision from plaintiffs, but none from defendants.  The court rules as follows.

The first objection is more informational.  If there is a chance that Arturo will move back onto the property, the court will deal with the situation then.  For now, nothing needs to be done.  The second objection is SUSTAINED.  The court will amend the Statement of Decision to state that none of defendants’ security cameras can be placed such that they have a view onto or into plaintiffs’ property.  The third objection is OVERRULED.  Arturo is in default.  As such, a judgment cannot be entered in excess of the specific numbers in the complaint.  Because the amount of non-economic damages were not set forth therein, Arturo cannot be held liable in that amount.  Actually, that applies to non-economic damages as well, and thus the damages as to Arturo will be limited to $25,000.  In order to avoid the need to file a separate default judgment against Arturo, the court will amend the Statement of Decision to so reflect.  The fourth objection is SUSTAINED in that the court does recall that Dr. Sobel’s deposition was used.  The court will change the wording to so reflect, but that will not change the judgment.

The court intends to file a revised and final Statement of Decision by month’s end.  Plaintiffs should then file a proposed judgment.  That judgment should be run by defense counsel for approval as to form only.  Of course, approval as to form is not a waiver of any claimed substantive error.

The court will set a status conference re: Entry of Judgment for about 45 days out.