Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 20STCV20703, Date: 2023-10-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV20703 Hearing Date: March 13, 2024 Dept: 31
DEPT: 
  | 31  | 
OSC DATE: 
  | 03/13/2024  | 
CASE NAME/NUMBER: 
  | 20STCV20703 CRYSTAL COLEMAN, et al. vs JOHN DOE, et al.  | 
REQUEST FOR COURT JUDGMENT AGAINST [DEFAULTING PARTY]: 
  | Joshua Randles (Doe 1)  | 
RECOMMENDATION: 
  | DENY for reasons stated below.  | 
TENTATIVE
The Court last denied Plaintiffs Crystal Coleman (“Coleman”) and Renee Larkins (“Larkins”) (“Plaintiffs”) request for court judgment against defendant Joshua Randles (“Defendant”) on October 12, 2023 due to a multitude of deficiencies. Although Plaintiffs have cured many of the deficiencies previously noted, a few remain uncured.
Plaintiffs’ second request for default judgment, submitted on February 6, 2024, is denied for the following reasons:
First, the Court last instructed Plaintiffs to use CIV-100 [Rev. January 1, 2023]. On the renewed application, Plaintiffs fail to file a CIV-100 altogether. The use of CIV-100 is mandatory. (CRC 3.1800(a).)
Second, Plaintiffs’ counsel provides a copy of only Coleman’s statement of damages served to Defendant in his declarations. The Court is unable to locate a copy of the statement of damages pertaining to Larkins. Plaintiffs are to separately file their individual statement of damages that were served on Defendant.
Third, Plaintiffs still have not dismissed all the other unnamed Doe Defendants to this action (namely Does 2-50) against whom default judgment is not sought. (CRC 3.1800(a)(7).)
Lastly, it is unclear whether Plaintiffs are seeking special damages, general damages, or a combination of both. If Plaintiffs are seeking special damages, such as medical specials, then Plaintiffs must support the request with authenticated copies of the medical bills. The Court will not award any unsubstantiated requests for damages.
This is the second time that the Court has identified these same defects, which Plaintiffs, through counsel, have failed to correct. Plaintiffs’ counsel has failed to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to comply with the Court’s prior orders and for failure to prosecute. Accordingly, the Court hereby imposes against Plaintiffs’ counsel monetary sanctions of $250 payable within 30 days.
No later than _______________, Plaintiffs are to submit a new default judgment package correcting these defects. Failure to do so may result in the imposition of sanctions, including monetary sanctions and/or dismissal. The OSC re entry of default judgment is continued to ________________.