TENTATIVE 

Plaintiff Santiago Raphael Teodocio, by and through guardian ad litem Meilyn Zelaya, (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Jose R. Herrera, Elia Herrera, and Does 1 to 10 for damages arising from a dog bite. Plaintiff alleges that Jose R. Herrera and Elia Herrera (collectively, “the Herreras”) rented property to Doe 1 and Doe 2. Plaintiff alleges the Herreras and/or their renters owned a pit bull named “Bella,” who freely roamed the property, and knowingly possessed vicious and dangerous propensities to attack people without provocation. The complaint sets forth two causes of action for (1) strict liability – Civil Code § 3342 and (2) negligence.  

Plaintiff now seeks default judgment against the Herreras.  

This is Plaintiff’s first request for default judgment. The request submitted on April 10, 2024 is DENIED for the following reasons: 

Plaintiff has not submitted a proposed judgment on judicial council form JUD-100 [Rev. January 1, 2024]. (CRC 3.1800(a)(6).) 

Plaintiff has not dismissed all other parties against whom default judgment is not sought. (CRC 3.1800(a)(7).) This requirement includes all unnamed Doe defendants.  

Plaintiff has not filed a declaration under penalty of perjury supporting the amount of damages sought. (CRC 3.1800(a)(2).) Rather, Plaintiff submits two declarations of his counsel, one of which is unsigned. Plaintiff's counsel necessarily does not have the requisite personal knowledge to attest to any of Plaintiff's damages, nor to authenticate his medical records and bills since Counsel did not personally incur them. Minor Plaintiff's guardian ad litem should be the person attesting to the damages and authenticating the records. 

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 _______________.