Judge: Rupert A. Byrdsong, Case: 24STCV09406, Date: 2025-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV09406    Hearing Date: February 7, 2025    Dept: 28

Tentative Ruling

Judge Rupert A. Byrdsong

Department 28

Hearing Date:                                  February 7, 2025          

Case Name:                                      Guidone Mutual Insurance v. Cabrera

Case No.:                                           24STCV09406

Motion:                                              Default Judgment

Moving Party:                                 Plaintiff Guidone Mutual Insurance

Responding Party:                         Unopposed

Notice:                                                OK

Recommended Ruling:               Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment in its favor and                                                                against Defendant Joshua Cabrera is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

On April 15, 2024, Plaintiff Guidone Mutual Insurance (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Joshua Cabrera (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 100. Plaintiff alleged causes of action for (1) subrogation claims and (2) indebtedness.

Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff had an effective automobile insurance policy with Tiferet Company Inc. Allegedly, Defendant struck the insured parked vehicle, causing significant damage.

On April 27, 2024, Plaintiff personally served Defendant. The clerk entered default against Defendant on July 15, 2024. This is Plaintiff’s first request for entry of default judgment.

ANALYSIS

Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) Section 585 permits entry of a judgment after a defendant’s default has been entered.  A party seeking judgment on the default by the Court must file a Request for Court Judgment, and: (1) a brief summary of the case; (2) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3) interest computations as necessary; (4) a memorandum of costs and disbursements; (5) a proposed form of judgment; (6) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought; (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under CCP Section 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (8) exhibits as necessary; and (9) a request for attorneys’ fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties.  CRC 3.1800.

JC Form CIV-100 must be used to request court judgment.  Item number 2 must be completed.  Item number 8 must be completed if the Defendant is an individual.  Plaintiff must submit a proposed form of judgment. 

Here, Plaintiff has filed a CIV-100 form for Defendant and completed items 2 and 8. Plaintiff has also filed a proposed form of judgment using a JUD-100 form. Likewise, on December 11, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed all Doe defendants.

The issue here relates to proof of damages. Notably, Plaintiff seeks $79,709.94 in total damages. Watts Decl., ¶ 8. However, Plaintiff has not proven this much in damages. The Watts Declaration states that a “true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s financial records made pursuant to this claim are attached hereto to Exhibit 3 and are incorporated by reference.” Watts Decl., ¶ 8. However, no exhibits are attached to the Watts Declaration. Plaintiff has also submitted a declaration by Steven Leanse, and this declaration does contain exhibits. However, the exhibits do not lay out the requested damage total of $79,709.94. Exhibit 1 to the Leanse Declaration is a police report, and the police report does not contain any monetary damages. Exhibit 2 contains a property damage appraiser’s report showing a net total cost of $36,787.79. Exhibit 3 shows a list of checks paid to various vendors in different amounts and a bill for a car rental for $8,999.59.  The Court has thoroughly examined these exhibits and tried to calculate all the numbers in every which possible way to reach a total of $79,709.94, but the Court has not cracked the code as to how Plaintiff reaches the total damage demand. The Court respectfully requests that Plaintiff resubmit the supporting declarations with a demonstration of how the $79,709.94 figure was reached.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, Plaintiff Guidone Mutual Insurance’s request for entry of default judgment in its favor and against Defendant Joshua Cabrera is DENIED.