Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 23STCV22001, Date: 2024-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV22001    Hearing Date: March 21, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Plaintiff Cesar Cotto (“Plaintiff”) requests entry of default judgment against Defendant Claim Jumper Acquisition Company LLC (“Defendant”). Plaintiff seeks judgment in the total amount of $9,074.00, comprising $8,000.00 in damages, $504.00 in costs, and $570.00 in attorney fees. Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief. (See proposed judgment.)

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

First, Plaintiff’s proposed judgment concerning Plaintiff’s requested injunctive relief provides, inter alia, that Plaintiff seeks a “(1) A preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendant within six (6) months after the date of this order, to: (a) Take all steps necessary to make its website ‘www.claimjumper.com’ readily accessible to and usable by blind and visually impaired individuals; and (b) Change Defendant’s corporate policies, practices, and procedures to provide for regular maintenance of ‘www.claimjumper.com’ so that it remains readily accessible to and usable by blind and visually impaired individuals.”

The prayer for relief in the Complaint in this action alleges that Plaintiff seeks “[a] preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendant to take the steps necessary to make www.claimjumper.com readily accessible to and usable by blind and visually-impaired individuals...” (Compl., Prayer for Relief, ¶ 3.) However, the Complaint does not appear to allege that Plaintiff seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendant to “provide for regular maintenance of ‘www.claimjumper.com’ so that it remains readily accessible to and usable by blind and visually impaired individuals.” (See Proposed Judgment, p. 2:1-3.) 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.)

In addition, Plaintiff seeks $8,000.00 in damages. Paragraph 6 of the Prayer for Relief of the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff seeks “[a]n additional award of $4,000.00 as deterrence damages for each violation pursuant to Johnson v. Guedoir, 218 F. Supp. 3d 1096; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150740 (USDC Cal, E.D. 2016)…” (Compl., Prayer for Relief, ¶ 6; see also Manning, Jr. Decl., ¶ 7.) However, the Court notes that this case is a non-binding federal district court case.

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 21, 2024                              ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court