Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 22STCV23290, Date: 2023-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV23290    Hearing Date: March 14, 2023    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   March 14, 2023                                  

CASE NAME:           Budget Rent a Car System Inc., et al. v. Wendell A. Mendoza Miranda, et al.

CASE NO.:                22STCV23290

OSC RE: SUBMISSION OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiffs Budget Rent a Car System, Inc., and Chubb Insurance Company

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of March 9, 2023.

TENTATIVE RULING:

1.      Default Judgment is GRANTED.

LEGAL STANDARD:

CCP § 585 permits entry of a judgment after a Defendant fails to timely answer following proper service of process. A party seeking judgment on the default by the Court must file a Request for Court Judgment, and provide: (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; (7) 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; (8) exhibits as necessary; and (9) a request for attorneys’ fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (CRC Rule 3.1800.)

A party in default has confessed the material allegations of the complaint.  (Johnson v. Stanhiser (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 357, 361—362.)  Usually, when evaluating a default prove-up package, if the complaint properly states a cause of action, the only additional proof required for the judgment is that needed to establish the amount of damages.  (Carlsen v. Koivumaki (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 879, 898.)  Where the complaint states no damages or seeks alternative forms of relief, Code of Civil Procedure section 585 (b) provides that judgment may still be had upon the Court hearing the evidence offered by the plaintiff and rendering judgment in the plaintiff’s favor for that relief “as appears by the evidence to be just.”  (See also Johnson v. Stanhiser, at p. 362.) 

Discussion

Proof of Service of Process: Proofs of Personal Service as to Alicia Patterson and Wendell A. Mendoza Miranda were entered on 8/18/2022 and 8/31/2022. Proof of Publication as to ChristyAna Oliphant was entered on 12/8/2022.

Request for Entry of Default: Form CIV-100 was entered for the following:

·         As to Alicia Patterson – default entered 10/10/2022.

·         As to Wendell A. Mendoza Miranda – default entered 10/10/2022.

·         As to ChristyAna Oliphant – default entered 1/6/2023.

Prove Up: Plaintiffs seek entry an entry of Declaratory Relief. Plaintiffs seek a court judgment “declaring that there is no coverage available under the Supplemental Liability Insurance (SLI) purchased by the renter at the time of the rental agreement.” (Memorandum 2: 4-6.)

In support of Plaintiff’s request, the following documents have been provided:  

·         A brief summary of the case: A brief summary of the case was filed on 2/23/2022. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief “with respect to a policy of excess insurance issued by Chubb Insurance Company for a vehicle rented out by Budget Rent a Car/Avis Budget Group.” (Memorandum 1: 22-24.)

·         Declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested: The Declarations of Joseph L. Stark and Vincent Moffa have been provided.

·         Interest computations as necessary: N/A

·         Memorandum of costs and disbursements: N/A

·         Proposed form of judgment: Form JUD-100 was filed on 3/6/2023.

·         Dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought: Form CIV-110 was filed on 1/25/2023.

·         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: N/A

·         Exhibits as necessary: Attached to the Declaration of Vince Moffa, Plaintiffs have provided 6 exhibits: (1) the rental agreement executed by Alicia Patterson, (2) the rental jacket containing the terms and conditions of the rental agreement, (3) the Mendoza complaint filed on 3/30/2021, (4) Alicia Patterson’s counsel’s ex parte application to continue the Mendoza trial, (5) a letter from third-party administrator Sedgwick letter to Defendant Oliphant about the lack of coverage under SLI provisions, and (6) the police report.

·         Request for attorneys’ fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (CRC Rule 3.1800.): N/A

The essential elements for a declaratory relief cause of action are: (1) a person interested under a written instrument or a contract; (2) a declaration of his or her rights or duties with respect to another or in respect to, in, over, or upon property; and (3) an actual controversy.  (Code Civ. Proc § 1060; Ludgate Ins. Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 592, 605—606.) For a declaratory judgment, a party must demonstrate that the action is “(1) a proper subject of declaratory relief, and (2) an actual controversy involving justiciable questions relating to [that party’s] rights or obligations.” (Wilson & Wilson v. City Council of Redwood City (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1559, 1581). “Declaratory relief operates prospectively to declare future rights, rather than to redress past wrongs.” (County of San Diego v. State of California (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 580, 607).

Here, the complaint satisfies the requirements for declaratory relief. In the complaint, Plaintiffs allege that after Wendell A Miranda Mendoza filed the underlying action, Plaintiffs “have been asked to provide underlying coverage and excess coverage for Oliphant’s operation of the vehicle.” (Comp. ¶ 10.) Plaintiffs further allege that there is a controversy as Defendants contend coverage exists for the indemnity and/or defense under the policy, whereas Plaintiffs contend no coverage exists for indemnity.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:

Default Judgment is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             March 14, 2023                                   ___________________________________

                                                                                    Upinder Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court