TENTATIVE 

This is an action for strict products liability, negligence, breach of warranty (expressed and implied), negligence, and wrongful death arising from a vehicle collision with a pole that took place on November 19, 2018, and resulted in the death of Decedent Paula Bianca Udiong (“Decedent”).  

Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges that Plaintiffs Angelo Udiong (“Angelo”), and Amada Udiong (“Amada”), Joshua Ancheta (“Ancheta”), were passengers in a Toyota vehicle, and Defendant Richard Ryan Sotillo Baes (“Baes”) was the driver of the Toyota vehicle. Plaintiffs allege the vehicle caught fire, resulting in the death of Decedent.  

Because Plaintiffs have dismissed all defendants except for Baes, the only remaining pertinent allegations are Plaintiffs’ cause of action for negligence, and Angelo’s and Amada’s (collectively, “Udiong Plaintiffs”) cause of action for wrongful death as the parents of Decedent.  

Furthermore, notwithstanding the allegations in the FAC, the declarations of Plaintiffs make it clear that the Udiong Plaintiffs were not personally involved in the incident, but are instead the surviving heirs in this wrongful death claim. Only Plaintiff Ancheta was a passenger of the Toyota vehicle.  

Damages for wrongful death are measured by the financial benefits the heirs were receiving at the time of death, those reasonably to be expected in the future, and the monetary equivalent of loss of comfort, society, and protection. (Boeken v. Philip Morris USA Inc. (2013) 217 Cal. App. 4th 992 ; Code of Civil Procedure section 377.61.)  

Amada seeks $2 million for emotional distress, loss of society & companionship, and pain and suffering. Amada declares that she and her daughter, Decedent, lived with her at the time of the accident, and they spent time together shopping, cooking, and attending church. As a result of her death, Amada declares her life has been affected, and that she is unable to sleep at night and suffers from nightmares.  

Amada provides the Traffic Collision Report, photographs of the burned vehicle, the autopsy report, and Statement of Damages served on Defendant. She does not provide any documentation of financial benefits received or expected to receive in the future, or declaration or evidence of the monetary equivalent of loss of Decedent’s society. It appears that Amada’s damages are based solely on grief and sorrow. As provided by the California Supreme Court, noneconomic damages are recognized in wrongful death actions, including damages for loss of society and comfort, so long as the damages were not based merely on grief or sorrow. (Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 788, 796.)  

In a wrongful death action, the measure of damages is what the heirs received at the time of the death of decedent and what the heirs would have received had Decedent lived. (Cervantes v. Maco Gas Co. (App. 3 Dist. 1960) 2 Cal.Rptr. 75.) 

Once more, Plaintiffs may not recover for the grief or sorrow attendant on Decedent's death, nor for the sentimental value of the loss, nor for sorrow for the decedent's pain and suffering. (See also Hillebrand v. Standard Biscuit Co. (1903) 139 Cal. 233 [In an action for damages for the death of a person, more than nominal damages were recoverable where it appeared that the heirs of the person killed were her parents, and there was evidence that, in addition to the wages she was receiving at the time of her death, she assisted her parents in other ways.].)  

In terms of special damages amounting to a total of $37,010, comprised of funeral costs for $9,135, Cemetery Plot for $5,050, and total loss of the vehicle for $22,825, Angelo provides sufficient documentation in support of these damages.  

For restitution, Angelo provides that he was awarded $32,000 in restitution (Case Number 9SV03350). Defendant paid Angelo $800 a month since June 2022, but has not made any payments for the last 11 months. However, the Court is unclear as to whether the $32,000 in restitution was the full amount awarded, and Defendant should be credited an unknown and unstated amount for payments rendered from June 2022 to approximately 2023, or if the $32,000 is the amount owed after credit for payments already received. More importantly, this request for restitution was not provided in the Statement of Damages served on Defendant. The purpose of the statement of damages is to ensure that a defendant who declines to contest an action does not thereby subject himself to open ended liability. (Schwab v. Rondel Homes, Inc. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 428, 435 (quoting Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 826.) Therefore, the Court will not consider restitution.  

However, for general damages, for the same reasons provided in the analysis above regarding Amada’s request for general damages, Angelo’s declaration and evidence bears the same defects. Plaintiffs were previously instructed that it is speculative and unknown how the Udiongs calculated Decedent’s financial support and pecuniary value to amount to $2,000,000 each. On this new default package, Plaintiffs cured none of the defects previously identified.  

Plaintiff Ancheta alleges he was the back seat passenger of the vehicle involved in the incident. Ancheta seeks $146,935.02 in special damages and $1,500,000 for pain and suffering related to injuries from the incident. 

Pertaining Ancheta’s special damages, this amount is comprised of $144,089.02 in past medical expenses and $2,846 in default for student loans. In support, Ancheta provides sufficient documentation in support of these damages. However, the amount of past medical expenses is in excess of Ancheta’s statement of damages for $100,000. Further, there is no support for future medical expenses. The amount sought cannot exceed the amount pled in the operative complaint/cross-complaint or set forth in the statement of damages.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 580(a); Airs Aromatics, LLC v. CBL Data Recovery Technologies, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 1013, 1018.) Therefore, the amount will be reduced to the cap of $100,000.  

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this ruling.¿¿¿¿¿