Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 23STCV15019, Date: 2024-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV15019    Hearing Date: March 7, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Plaintiff Brian Whitaker (“Plaintiff”) requests entry of default judgment against Defendant Pokitomik West Hollywood Inc. (“Defendant”). Plaintiff seeks judgment in the total amount of $9,423.53, comprising $4,000.00 in general damages, $1,803.53 in costs, and $3,620.00 in attorney fees.

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

First, Plaintiff alleges in the prayer for relief of the Complaint that “Plaintiff prays that this Court award damages and provide relief as follows:…4. Damages under the Unruh Civil Rights Act or California Disabled Persons Act, which provide for up to treble actual damages and statutory minimum of $4,000 or $1,000 respectively per violation of each Act. While Plaintiff may prevail on each act individually, Plaintiff only seeks monetary recovery under whichever act results in the greatest damages, to be determined at trial.” (Compl., Prayer for Relief, ¶ 4.) However, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not appear to allege the exact amount of damages Plaintiff seeks. The Court notes that “¿[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¿.) “[I]n all default judgments the demand sets a ceiling on recovery.” (Finney v. Gomez (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 527, 534.)

Second, Plaintiff seeks $200.00 in unspecified costs. (See Item 7(c) of Plaintiff’s Request for Court Judgment.) It is unclear if such unspecified costs are allowable under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5.

Third, in Item 6(a)(5) the proposed judgment (Form JUD-100), Plaintiff seeks an additional $200.00 that is not included in Plaintiff’s request for court judgment (Form CIV-100). In addition, Item 6(a)(6) of the proposed judgment is blank. Further, Item 1(e)(1) of the proposed judgment should not be checked. 

Fourth, Plaintiff’s “Application for Default Judgment by Court” provides, inter alia, that Plaintiff “seeks an order requiring Defendant to provide accessible toe clearances at the facility, in compliance with the ‘ADAAG.” (Application at p. 9:16-17.) However, Plaintiff’s proposed judgment (Form JUD-100) does not indicate that Plaintiff requests such relief. In addition, it does not appear that such specific relief was sought in the Complaint. As discussed, 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, supra, 241 Cal.App.4th at p. 968¿.)

Fifth, Plaintiff has not sought to dismiss the doe defendants. A party seeking a default judgment must file “[a] dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under ¿Code of Civil Procedure section 579¿, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment . . .”¿ (¿Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a)(7)¿.)¿

Based on the foregoing, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for default judgment without prejudice. The Court will discuss further proceedings with Plaintiff at the hearing.

DATED:  March 7, 2024                                ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court