Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 23STCV20619, Date: 2025-05-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV20619    Hearing Date: May 20, 2025    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Plaintiffs Blanca Espinoza and Joaquin Marin (“Plaintiffs”) request entry of default judgment against Defendant Nadine Jett. Plaintiffs seek judgment in the total amount of $303,941.00, comprising of $303.941.00 demanded in the Complaint. (Form CIV-100.)

The Court notes a few defects with the submitted default judgment package.¿ 

First, the Court does not see that a statement of damages was served on Defendant. Where, as here, the action makes personal injury claims, the amount of damages claimed may not be stated in the complaint (Code of Civ. Proc., § 425.10, subd. (b)) and must instead be stated in a separate statement of damages (Code of Civ. Proc., § 425.11). This statement shall be served on the defendant before a default may be taken.  (Code of Civ. Proc., § 425.11, subd. (c).) Default judgment is void if the defendant was not served with the required statement of damages before the default was entered. (Yu v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 1024, 1031.)

Second, Plaintiffs have not submitted sufficient evidence to prove up the requested damages.  Plaintiffs must submit their declarations under penalty of perjury with admissible evidence in support of the amount of damages sought pursuant to CRC 3.1800(a)(2). A defaulting defendant admits only the well pled facts concerning liability, not damages–Plaintiffs must still introduce admissible prima facie evidence of damages. (See Johnson v. Stanhiser (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 357, 361.) Plaintiffs request damages in the amount of $23,316.00 for the leasehold’s diminution of value, $8,350.00 for costs of property, and $272,275.00 for pain and suffering. (Case Summary at pp. 7:13-8:19; Ex. A.) Plaintiffs must substantiate amounts claimed for costs of property, such as with receipts for the lost physical property and pest remediation. (Case Summary, Ex. A; Espinoza Decl., ¶¶ 55-56.) Plaintiffs must also substantiate the amounts claimed for loss of use of a clothes dryer, a yard, storage by parking space, and storage in yard.  (Case Summary, Ex. A; Espinoza Decl., ¶¶ 50-53.) The Court will not grant any unsupported, speculative, or unsubstantiated requests for damages.

Based on the foregoing, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for default judgment without prejudice. Plaintiff must serve a statement of damages on Defendant before renewing its request for default judgment. The Court will discuss with Plaintiff a schedule for resubmission of the default judgment package. 

DATED:  May 20, 2025                           ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court