Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 24SMCV00697, Date: 2024-06-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV00697    Hearing Date: June 14, 2024    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Robert Bookman (“Plaintiff”) requests for default judgment against Defendant Cameron Hughes (“Defendant”) in the amount of $511,622.25, which is composed of special damages in the amount of $511,056.00 and costs in the amount of $566.25.

ANALYSIS

            Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges twelve causes of action for (1) breach of contract; (2) account stated; and (3) fraud/misrepresentation as to each of four separate alleged promises/agreements whereby Defendant promised to sell bottles of wine from Plaintiff’s collection to prospective buyers in exchange for a 7.5% commission of the total sales price. 

            Defendant was personally served with a copy of the summons, complaint, and statement of damages on March 6, 2024. Default was entered against Defendant on April 8, 2024, and the Doe defendants were dismissed on May 1, 2024.

            Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks a total of $127,764.00, representing $5,949 lost in connection with the first agreement; $55,800 in connection with the second agreement; $51,615 in connection with the third agreement; and $14,400 in connection with the fourth agreement.  (See Complaint.)  Plaintiff now seeks exactly four times that amount, or $511,056 in “special” damages (see CIV-100). 

            First, the Court cannot award damages that are in excess of what is pled in the Complaint. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 580, subd. (a) [“The relief granted to the plaintiff, if there is no answer, cannot exceed that demanded in the complaint”]; Levine v. Smith (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1136-1137 [“when recovering damages in a default judgment, the plaintiff is limited to the damages specified in the complaint”].)  Further, Plaintiff’s declaration indicates:

·       Regarding the first agreement, the wine was sold for $115,145, and Defendant made payments of $79,315; $5,000; $5,000; $10,000, totaling $99,315, leaving a balance owed of $15,830 (Bookman Decl. ¶¶ 5-6.)

·       Regarding the second agreement, the wine sold for $55,800, which Defendant failed to pay any portion of, leaving a balance owed of $55,800 (Bookman Decl. ¶ 7.)

·       Regarding the third agreement, the wine sold for $51,615, which Defendant failed to pay any portion of, leaving a balance owed of $51,615 (Bookman Decl. ¶ 8.)

·       Regarding the fourth agreement, the wine sold for $14,400, which Defendant has failed to pay any portion of, leaving a balance owed of $14,400 (Bookman Decl. ¶ 9.)

            As such, the Bookman Declaration only addresses $127,764 in special damages, and does not account for the additional $383,292 sought.  Furthermore, the Bookman declaration’s accounting of the $127,764 sought does not account for the 7.5% commission owed to Defendant for making the sales.

            Notwithstanding, Plaintiff contends the additional “special” damages requested were set forth in a Statement of Damages served on the Defendant.   However, Plaintiff failed to submit the Statement of Damages with the request for entry of default judgment. 

            But more important, the service of a Statement of Damages in lieu of alleging specific damages in the operative complaint is not apt.  Generally, “A statement of damages cannot be relied on to establish a plaintiff's monetary damages on the defendant's default, except in a personal injury or wrongful death case.”  (Cal. Judges Benchbook, Civ. Proc. Before Trial § 16.16, p. 1924, citations omitted.)   In Sporn v. Home Depot USA, Inc., the Court of Appeal determined:

Defendant also attacks the judgment under section 425.11, contending that plaintiff was required to serve it with a statement of damages and failed to do so. Section 425.11 applies to an action for personal injuries or wrongful death and was passed concurrently with the amendment to section 425.10 that prohibits stating the amount demanded in the complaint filed in such an action. Section 425.11 was enacted to satisfy the due process requirement that defendants be apprised of their exposure before a default may be taken.  But here the complaint, which was not limited to personal injuries and did not claim wrongful death, expressly apprised defendant of the amount demanded. A statement of damages would have been superfluous and was not required under these circumstances.

(Sporn v. Home Depot USA, Inc. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1294, 1302 [Plaintiff’s claims of negligence, gross negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation and fraud centered on the theft of his identity] [cleaned up].)  Similar to the appellate court’s determination Sporn v. Home Depot USA, Inc., this Court finds that Plaintiff’s action is not one for personal injuries or wrongful death as defined pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 425.10 and 425.11.  As such, Plaintiff will need to amend the complaint and serve it on Defendant before the Court will enter default judgment as requested. 

CONCLUSION

            Because Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of those demanded in the Complaint, the Court denies without prejudice Plaintiff’s request to enter default judgment.

            Further, the Court vacates the Case Management Conference and sets an Order to Show Cause re Entry of Default Judgment on October 22, 2024 at 8:30 A.M. in Department 207.   

DATED:  June 14, 2024                                  ________________________________

                                                                        Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                        Judge of the Superior Court