Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV31871, Date: 2023-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV31871    Hearing Date: April 17, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:         Request for Default Judgment

Moving Party:  Plaintiff Stefanie Albayati

Resp. Party:    None

Plaintiff’s Request for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. The entries of default entered on all Defendants are VACATED.

The Court, on its own motion, schedules a Case Management Conference/Trial Setting Conference for May 25, 2023.  Plaintiff to give notice.

BACKGROUND:

On September 29, 2022, Plaintiff Stefanie Albayati filed her Complaint against Defendants Mama D’s El Segundo, LLC, MDS Hermosa Beach, Inc., MDS Redondo Beach, Inc., and Christopher Davidson on causes of action arising from Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants.

On January 25, 2023, by request of Plaintiff, the Clerk’s Office entered default on Christopher Davidson.

On February 2, 2023, by request of Plaintiff, the Clerk’s Office entered default on Mama D’s El Segundo, LLC, MDS Redondo Beach, Inc., and MDS Hermosa Beach, Inc.

On March 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint.

ANALYSIS:

I.           Legal Standard

“It is settled by a long line of decisions that where, after the default of a defendant has been entered, a complaint is amended in matter of substance as distinguished from mere matter of form, the amendment opens the default, and unless the amended pleading be served on the defaulting defendant, no judgment can properly be entered on the default. The reason for this rule is plain. A defendant is entitled to opportunity to be heard upon the allegations of the complaint on which judgment is sought against him. His default on the original complaint is limited in its effect to that complaint, and if by amendment a matter of substance is added he should be given the opportunity to contest the same before any judgment is given against him on account thereof.” (Cole v. Roebling Constr. Co. (1909) 156 Cal.443, 446, citations omitted; see also Ostling v. Loring (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1731, 1743.)

“An amendment which significantly increases the amount of damages sought is an amendment of substance which must be served before a default can be entered.” (Engebretson & Co. v. Harrison (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 436, 440, citation omitted.)

“When there are multiple defendants, the rule requiring new service of a materially changed complaint applies only if the change or addition relates to the particular defendant. The required notice is the formal notice embodied on the service of the new pleading, and is not met even if the defendant had actual notice from other sources.” (Paterra v. Hansen (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 507, 529–30, citations omitted.)

II.        Discussion

Here, Plaintiff filed an amended pleading after the Clerk’s Office entered default on each of the Defendants. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint makes substantive changes, most importantly dollar figures in the prayer for judgment, where none had previously been listed in the original Complaint. The first two causes of action are limited to the corporate Defendants, while the last six causes of action concern all the Defendants. As all Defendants are affected by substantive changes to the pleading, vacatur of the defaults to all Defendants is appropriate here.

III.     Conclusion

Plaintiff’s Request for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. The entries of default entered on all Defendants are VACATED.

        The Court, on its own motion, schedules a Case Management Conference/Trial Setting Conference for May 25, 2023.  Plaintiff to give notice.