Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV33277, Date: 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV33277    Hearing Date: May 4, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTIES:             Plaintiffs Cindi Oliveros, Ryan Fabello, and Esmeralda Fabello, by and through her Guardian ad Litem Cindi Oliveros

RESPONDING PARTY:       N/A

Request for Court Judgment by Default

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this request for default judgment.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs Cindi Oliveros, Ryan Fabello, and Esmeralda Fabello, by and through her Guardian ad Litem Cindi Oliveros (“Plaintiffs”) request that the court enter judgment by default against defendant Marisol Garcia (“Defendant”) in the amount of $1,049,512.88 consisting of (1) $800,000 in punitive damages, (2) $135,850 in damages, relocation fees, and statutory penalties, (3) $105,424.50 in interest, (4) $603.38 in costs, and (5) $7,635 in attorney’s fees. 

The court notes the following defects with Plaintiffs’ papers and therefore denies Plaintiffs’ request for default judgment.        

First, the court finds that Plaintiffs did not specifically allege in their Complaint all damages now sought in their request for court judgment by default against Defendant.

“The relief granted to the plaintiff, if there is no answer, cannot exceed that demanded in the complaint….”  (Civ. Code, § 580, subd. (a).)  “‘[A] default judgment greater than the amount specifically demanded is void as beyond the court’s jurisdiction.’”  (Falahati v. Kondo (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 823, 830.)

Plaintiffs request that the court award general damages in the total amount of $135,850, consisting of (1) $12,600 for return of rents; (2) $300 in consequential damages; (3) $22,950 for relocation fees; and (4) $100,000 in statutory damages, consisting of “$10,000.00 per violation for a total of 10 violations of the Los Angeles Anti-Tenant Harassment Ordinance LAMC Section 151.33 and 151.10(B)….”  (Pl. Ex. 5, p. 19:21-28.)  However, Plaintiffs did not request this amount in their Complaint.

Plaintiffs have specifically requested the following damages in their Complaint: (1) $22,950 in relocation fees; (2) statutory damages in the amount of $2,000 pursuant to Civil Code section 1940.2; (3) penalties in the amount of $10,000 for each violation pursuant to Los Angeles Municipal Code Chapter IV, Article 14.6, Section 49.99.7; (4) penalties in the amount of $10,000 for each violation pursuant to Los Angeles Municipal Code Chapter IV, Article 15.3, Section 45.35; and (5) penalties in the amount of $5,000 per day for each violation of the Los Angeles County Eviction Moratorium.  (Compl., ¶¶ 26; Compl., Prayer, ¶¶ 4, 7-10.)  The court notes that, although Plaintiffs have requested $10,000 “for each violation of” various provisions of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, Plaintiffs have not clearly set forth each violation in their Complaint so as to put Defendant on notice of the exact amount of statutory damages sought by Plaintiffs.  Thus, Plaintiffs have only properly requested $20,000 total for the two alleged violations of the Los Angeles Municipal Code.  (Compl., Prayer, ¶¶ 8-9; National Diversified Services, Inc. v. Bernstein (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 410, 418 [because the complaint only generally alleged damages in excess of $10,000, “it would be improper to grant a default judgment in excess of $10,000”].)  Plaintiffs have therefore requested general damages in the total amount of $49,950 in their Complaint.

Thus, the court may not award damages in excess of $49,950 (i.e., the amount pleaded in their Complaint), and therefore denies Plaintiffs’ request that the court award general damages in the amount of $135,850 in connection with their request for default judgment against Defendant.  (Falahati, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at p. 830.)

Second, the court finds that Plaintiffs have not provided evidence showing that they served Defendant with a statement of punitive damages and therefore have not shown that the court may enter a default judgment against Defendant awarding $800,000 in punitive damages to Plaintiffs.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.115, subd. (b) [“The plaintiff preserves the right to seek punitive damages pursuant to Section 3294 of the Civil Code on a default judgment by serving upon the defendant” the statement of the amount of punitive damages sought against the defendant as set forth in the statute].)

Third, Plaintiffs have not dismissed all Doe defendants as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1800, subd. (a)(7).)

Fourth, although Plaintiffs have prepared a proposed order granting Plaintiffs’ request for court judgment by default, Plaintiffs have not prepared a proposed form of judgment on Judicial Council Form JUD-100. 

The court therefore denies Plaintiffs’ request for court judgment by default.

ORDER

The court denies plaintiffs Cindi Oliveros, Ryan Fabello, and Esmeralda Fabello’s, by and through her Guardian ad Litem Cindi Oliveros, request for court judgment by default.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  May 4, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court