Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 23STCV26371, Date: 2024-08-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV26371 Hearing Date: August 20, 2024 Dept: 53
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles – Central District
Department
53
|
vs. |
Case
No.: |
23STCV26371 |
|
|
|
|
|
Hearing
Date: |
August
20, 2024 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[tentative]
Order RE: plaintiff’s request for court judgment by
default |
||
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Sagebrook Home LLC
RESPONDING PARTY: n/a
Request for Court Judgment by Default
Plaintiff Sagebrook Home LLC (“Plaintiff”) requests that the court
enter default judgment in its favor and against defendant Maria Carmen Guillen
(“Defendant”) in the amount of $200,517.16, consisting of $176,787 in damages,
$18,064.39 in interest, $2,007.90 in costs, and $3,657.87 in attorney’s fees.
The court finds that Plaintiff’s request for damages in the amount of
$176,787 exceeds what was requested in the Complaint.
“The relief granted to the plaintiff, if there is no answer, cannot
exceed that demanded in the complaint . . . .”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 580, subd. (a).)
“Thus, ‘in all default judgments the demand sets a ceiling on recovery,’
and a judgment purporting to grant relief beyond that ceiling is void for being
in excess of jurisdiction.” (Sass v.
Cohen (2020) 10 Cal.5th 861, 863.)
Plaintiff did not request a specific amount of damages in its prayer,
and instead prayed for “an award of monetary damages in an amount to be proven
at trial[.]” (Compl., p. 8:12, Prayer ¶
1.) In the allegations of the Complaint,
Plaintiff prayed for damages in the amount of $25,000.[1] (Compl., ¶¶ 19, 23, 28, 36; Sass, supra,
10 Cal.5th at p. 873 [“‘a prayer for damages according to proof passes muster
under section 580 only if a specific amount of damages is alleged in the body
of the complaint’”].) Thus, Plaintiff has
prayed for damages in the amount of $25,000, and any award of damages in excess
of that amount would be “void for being in excess of jurisdiction.” (Sass, supra, 10 Cal.5th at p.
863.)
The court therefore denies Plaintiff’s request for default judgment
against Defendant, without prejudice to Plaintiff’s (1) filing a new request
for default judgment seeking damages in the amount of $25,000 or less, or (2)
filing an amended complaint praying for damages in the amount sought and filing
a new request for default judgment if Defendant’s default is entered on the
amended complaint.
The court directs the clerk to give notice of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
_____________________________
Robert
B. Broadbelt III
Judge
of the Superior Court
[1] While
the court notes that Plaintiff requested $25,000 in damages in connection with
its first through third and fifth causes of action (Compl., ¶¶ 19, 23, 28, 36),
each cause of action is based on the same injury (i.e., Defendant’s possession
of Plaintiff’s confidential, privileged, and protected information) and thus
seek the same damages, such that Plaintiff has put Defendant on notice that it
is seeking a maximum amount of $25,000 in damages against her. (Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d
922, 830 [finding that the plaintiff gave sufficient notice that she claimed at
least $15,000 in compensatory damages when each of her causes of action
concluded that she suffered damage in an amount exceeding the jurisdictional
excess of the court].)