Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 22STCV30799, Date: 2023-04-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV30799    Hearing Date: April 20, 2023    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Plaintiffs Angelica Rosas, Jose Jesus Rosas, Sandy Sampson, and Jose Rosas (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) request entry of default judgment against Defendant Emma Nunez (“Defendant”). Plaintiffs seek $1,122,383 in special damages, $41,421,360 in general damages, $794.95 in costs, and $21,498 in attorney’s fees.

The Court notes a number of defects with the submitted default judgment package. 

First, the Complaint does not set forth an amount of damages demanded. “¿A complaint…shall contain…the following:…(2) A demand for judgment for the relief to which the pleader claims to be entitled. If the recovery of money or damages is demanded, the amount demanded shall be stated.¿” (¿¿Code Civ. Proc., § 425.10, subd. (a)¿¿.) ¿¿Code of Civil Procedure section 580, subdivision (a)¿¿ “¿limits a trial court’s jurisdiction to grant relief on a default judgment to the amount stated in the complaint.¿” (¿¿Dhawan v. Biring (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 963, 968¿¿.) “The amount of the default judgment ‘cannot exceed that demanded in the complaint, in the statement required by ¿Section 425.11¿, or in the statement provided for by ¿Section 425.115.’” (¿Ibid., citing Code Civ. Proc., § 580(a)¿.) “The statement required by ¿section 425.11¿ is a statement of damages served separately on a defendant in ‘an action to recover damages for personal injury or wrongful death.’” (¿Id. at p. 968-969, citing Code Civ. Proc., § 425.11(b)¿.) Service of a statement of damages in an action not involving personal injury or wrongful death is ineffective and does not satisfy the requirements of ¿Code of Civil Procedure section 580, subdivision (a)¿. (¿Id. at pp. 972-973¿.)  

Here, it appears that Plaintiffs served statements of damages on Defendant. But because this is not a personal injury or wrongful death action, the service of the statements of damages is ineffective. (¿See Rodriguez v. Cho (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 742, 755 [finding that a cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy is “primarily defined by the loss of one’s job, an economic benefit that constitutes a property right” and even if emotional distress damages are pled, courts “look to ‘the nature of the tort rather than the type or extent of the damages’ pled”]¿.)  

Second, Item 1(b) of the Request for Court Judgment (Form CIV-100) indicates that Angelica Rosas, Jose Jesus Rosas, Sandy Sampson, and Jose Rosas seek default judgment. However, the Plaintiffs named in this action are Sandy Sampson, Jesus Rosas, Angelica Rosas, and Jose Jesus Rosas. It appears Plaintiffs may have listed “Jose Rosas” instead of “Jesus Rosas” in Item 1(b).

Third, Item 2(f) of the Request for Court Judgment is blank. Thus, it is unclear what total amount is sought.

Fourth, below Item 6 of the Request for Court Judgment, the Declarant’s name is listed, but no signature was provided.

Fifth, Item 7(e) of the Request for Court Judgment is blank. Thus, it is unclear what the total amount of costs is sought.

Sixth, no proposed Judgment (Form JUD-100) was submitted. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a)(6), the request must include “[a] proposed form of judgment.”

Based on the foregoing, the Court denies the request for default judgment without prejudice. The Court will discuss with Plaintiffs a schedule for resubmission of the default judgment package. Plaintiff must deliver a courtesy copy of the default judgment package to Department 50 concurrently with the filing of the new default judgment package.

DATED:  April 20, 2023                                ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court