Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV01486, Date: 2024-05-24 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on a tentative ruling by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 23PSCV01486    Hearing Date: May 24, 2024    Dept: G

Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club’s Application for Default Judgment

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice and Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club is granted leave to file a First Amended Complaint.

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury action arising from an automobile collision. In May 2021, Defendant Anthony Santanagiles was operating a motor vehicle owned by Defendant Darryl Ursery on San Bernardino Avenue near Indian Hill Boulevard in Pomona when Santanagiles collided with Pedro Munostandazo’s vehicle. As a result, Munostandazo’s insurer, Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club (IEAC), paid Munostandazo $103,500.00 for personal injury and property damages.

On May 16, 2023, IEAC filed a complaint against Santanagiles, Ursery, and Does 1-10, alleging a single cause of action for subrogation. On July 15, 2023, IEAC’s process server served Ursery with substitute service in Montclair. On October 25, 2023, the Court entered default against Ursery after Ursery failed to timely file an answer.

On November 18, 2023, IEAC’s process server personally served Santanagiles in Victorville. On February 2, 2024, IEAC dismissed Santanagiles from the present action.

On May 16, 2024, IEAC submitted the present application for default judgment.

An OSC Re: Default Judgment is set for May 24, 2024.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 585 permits entry of a default judgment after a party has filed to timely respond or appear.  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 or an application for separate judgment under CCP § 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (7) exhibits as necessary; and (8) a request for attorneys’ fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties.  (Cal. Rules of Court 3.1800.)

ANALYSIS

IEAC seeks default judgment against Ursery in the total amount of $116,778.11, including $103,500.00 in damages, $12,763.11 in interest, and $515.00 in costs.¿For the following reasons, the Court DENIES IEAC’s application.

“[T]he complaint delimits the nature of the legal theories which plaintiff may pursue and the nature of the evidence which is admissible.” (Ostling v. Loring (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1731, 1744.) “The court cannot allow a plaintiff to prove different claims or different damages at a default hearing than those pled in the complaint.” (Heidary v. Yadollahi (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 857, 868.)

Here, IEAC’s default judgment application proffers evidence that departs from and contradicts the allegations that were alleged in the Complaint. The Complaint alleges Santanagiles was negligently operating a vehicle owned by Ursery and caused the collision at issue. (Complaint, ¶ 4-5, 12-13.) In IEAC’s default judgment application, the evidence now suggests that Ursery was the driver responsible for the collision as opposed to merely being the owner of the vehicle that was involved. (Ngo Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. A.) Accordingly, because IEAC’s Complaint and default prove-up evidence conflict, IEAC’s application for default judgment is DENIED and IEAC is directed to file and serve an amended Complaint on Ursery with these new allegations.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IEAC’s application for default judgment is DENIED and IEAC is given leave to file a First Amended Complaint.