TENTATIVE 

Plaintiff Aram Karyan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Jaysn Keith Dobard (“Dobard”) and Skyline Exchange LLC (“Skyline”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle incident. Dobard is alleged to have been operating the motor vehicle in the course of his employment with Skyline. Plaintiff has properly dismissed all unnamed Doe defendants. 

This is Plaintiff’s third request for default judgment. The request for default judgment submitted on January 17, 2024 (CIV-100s)/January 30, 2024 (Declarations; JUD-100) is DENIED for the following reasons:  

Previously, Plaintiff did not file a copy of the Statement of Damages served on Dobard. Plaintiff has now filed it. However, the Court notes that the Statement of Damages is dated December 22, 2023, and Dobard was allegedly served with it by mail on December 22, 2023, which is improper service. Personal service is required for the Statement of Damages, including any amendments increasing damage demands. (Plotitsa v. Superior Ct. (1983) 140 Cal. App. 3d 755, 760.) After reasonable diligence effecting personal service is not successful, then a plaintiff has the same protection as with service of summons on original complaints under sections 415.20 and 415.50 provide for substituted service and service by publication. (Id. at 761.) Formal notice “is an essential prerequisite to a valid default judgment.” (Engebretson & Co. v. Harrison (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 436, 443-444 [mail service constituted inadequate notice].) 

Further, the statement of damages must be served prior to entry of default, or default is void. Default was entered against Dobard on April 20, 2021, but the copy of the Statement of Damages provided indicates that its creation date was after entry of default.  

Here, the proof of service of the summons and complaint filed on Dobard provides that he was also served with the Statement of Damages via substituted service on December 6, 2020. Plaintiff must provide a copy of that Statement of Damages served on Dobard back in 2020. If Plaintiff has increased any of the amounts originally provided in the Statement of Damages served on December 6, 2020 as opposed to the Statement of Damages created on December 22, 2023, then increasing damage is the functional equivalent to an amendment to the complaint, and voids the underlying default. (Plotitsa v. Superior Court (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 755, 759.) Because the amount sought on default may not exceed the amount set forth in the statement of damages, and Plaintiff has not yet re-opened default due to the improper service of the 2023 Statement of Damages, Plaintiff has two options: (1) file a copy of the original Statement of Damages served on Dobard at the time of service of the summons and complaint back in 2020, or (2) properly re-serve the current Statement of Damages; if so, the entry of default previously obtained will be rendered void, and Plaintiff must seek new entry of default prior to filing a new default package.  

Further, on the last denial, it was unclear whether Plaintiff was seeking default judgment against just Dobard, or seeking default judgment against Skyline in addition. Now that Plaintiff has clarified that judgment is also sought against Skyline, the Court notes the same defect. The proof of service of summons provides that Skyline was served via substituted service the Statement of Damages on December 6, 2020, and default was entered against Skyline on April 20, 2021. However, the current copy of the Statement of Damages for Skyline provides that it was created on December 22, 2023, which is after entry of default. Due to the requirement that the Statement of Damages must be properly served on a defendant prior to entry of default, and any amendments increasing the demand voids the underlying default, Plaintiff has the same options as with Dobard. Plaintiff may either: (1) file a copy of the Statement of Damages that was served on Skyline back on December 6, 2020, or (2) properly re-serve the current 2023 Statement of Damages, and seek new entry of default against it.  

No later than __________________, Plaintiff is 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 _____________.