Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 23PSCV01357, Date: 2024-04-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV01357    Hearing Date: April 29, 2024    Dept: K

Plaintiff Michelle Hurtado’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

Background   

Plaintiff Michelle Hurtado (“Plaintiff”) alleges that she sustained injuries in a May 17, 2022 motor vehicle collision.

On May 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against Saul Villeda Saavedra (“Defendant”) and Does 1-100 for:

1.                  Negligence

On July 26, 2023, Defendant’s default was entered.

An Order to Show Cause Re: Default Judgment is set for April 29, 2024.

Discussion

Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is denied without prejudice. The following defects are noted:

1.                  In personal injury and wrongful death actions, the complaint must not state the amount of damages sought. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.10). Before a default may be entered, a plaintiff must serve the defendant with a statement of “the nature and amount of damages sought.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.11, subds. (b) and (c).). Plaintiff’s proof of service filed July 26, 2023 reflects that Defendant was concurrently served with the summons, complaint, and a Statement of Damages.

The Statement of Damages must provide actual notice of the nature and amount of damages being sought by plaintiff. (Schwab v. Rondel Homes, Inc. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 428, 435; Code Civ. Proc., § 425.11, subd. (b).). Plaintiff’s Statement of Damages, however, sets forth $2,000,000.00 in general damages but only $8,812.71 in special damages, while Plaintiff’s Judicial Council Form CIV-100 Request for Court Judgment purports to seek $27,447.71 in special damages and $25,000.00 in general damages.

2.                  Plaintiff has not provided the court with a summary of the case, as per California Rules of Court rule 3.1800, subdivision (a)(1).

3.                  The total in Paragraph 2(f) of Plaintiff’s Judicial Council Form CIV-100 Request for Court Judgment is wrong (i.e., should read $58,321.85).

4.                  Plaintiff has not provided any interest calculations, as per California Rules of Court rule 3.1800, subdivision (a)(3).

5.                  Plaintiff’s declaration references Exhibits A-D, but fails to attach any exhibits. Plaintiff has not provided the court with any documentary evidence of Defendant’s liability.

6.                  Plaintiff has failed to dismiss Doe Defendants, as per California Rules of Court rule 3.1800, subdivision (a)(7).