Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 24NNCV00260, Date: 2025-06-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV00260    Hearing Date: June 13, 2025    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

Plaintiff Kip Green (“Plaintiff”) seeks a default judgment against defendant Christopher Cabrera (“Defendant”). In his Complaint, Plaintiff claims Defendant failed to keep him and the owner of the RV (identified as Pam Feinstein) informed of the extensive delays in the repair of said vehicle, and that the repairs ended up taking two years. Plaintiff also alleges Defendant attempted to extort thousands of dollars from him by falsifying lien sale documents. Plaintiff claims that Defendant attempted to steal the RV, but it is unclear whether the RV was stolen and has since been recovered. Plaintiff’s Complaint is also confusing because he attaches five forms with different causes of action, all of which are based on the same set of facts, yet identifies different start dates for the same conduct. For example, as part of Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action, Plaintiff claims the negligence occurred beginning in July 2021, while Plaintiff alleges that the conversion and trespass to chattels forming the basis for his Second Cause of Action took place beginning on January 1, 2022. Plaintiff’s Third and Fourth Causes of Action alleges that the elder abuse and negligent/intentional infliction of emotional distress began on August 30, 2023.

The ambiguous nature of Plaintiff’s allegations renders the Complaint unintelligible. A defendant in default admits only those facts which are well-pleaded. (Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 272.) Therefore, a default judgment is inappropriate because the Complaint fails to state a cause of action. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s application for default judgment and strikes the Complaint for failing to conform to Code of Civil Procedure § 425.10, which requires a complaint to contain “a statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.”  

The Court additionally notes that even if Plaintiff’s Complaint were sufficiently pleaded, Plaintiff’s application for default judgment is technically deficient in several ways. First, Plaintiff did not file a proposed judgment on Form JUD-100 or some other appropriate form of proposed judgment. Second, Plaintiff’s causes of action are rooted in tort; the complaint must not state the amount of damages sought and before a default may be entered, the plaintiff must serve defendant with a statement of “the nature and amount of damages being sought.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.11; see Hamm v. Elkin (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1343, 1345-1346 [service after default entry but before prove-up not sufficient].) A copy of the statement of damages served on Defendant is not on file with the Court. The statement of damages provided is addressed to Jhamina Emminger (“Emminger”). Therefore, the Court is unable to determine whether Plaintiff’s requested default judgment exceeds the amount demanded in the statement of damages served on Cabrera. (Code Civ. Proc., § 585, subd. (b).) Third, Emminger remains a defendant in this case and there is no application for a separate judgment supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment. (California Rules of Court Rule 3.1800, subd. (a)(7).)

Plaintiff’s application is also substantively deficient. As a threshold matter, Plaintiff does not specify the amount of the judgment to be entered. Item 2 on Plaintiff’s Form CIV-100 requests a total judgment of $400,000 but identifies $480,000 in special damages and $1,500,000 in general damages. Plaintiff’s annotation stating “a lesser amount” in the margin of the form does not assist the Court. Also, Plaintiff submits no admissible evidence supporting his claimed damages. There is no evidence that the RV’s value is $50,000, or that the loss of its use is valued at $3,000 per month other than Plaintiff’s conclusory say-so. Plaintiff additionally vaguely describes the emotional distress he currently experiences as “a constant aggravation and terror in [his] life”, which is insufficient to justify the $1 million in general damages that he demands (if that is in fact, the amount he is demanding). Moreover, Plaintiff fails to substantiate his request for $10,000 for medical damages. Plaintiff claims that his medication, Caplyta, costs $100 per day but states that he only takes it “as needed”. Additionally, since Plaintiff admits that he is on Medicare, his recovery for his medical damages is limited to the amounts paid by Medicare. (Sanchez v. Strickland (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 758, 760.) Last, it is unclear why Plaintiff believes that the damages should be trebled as Plaintiff cites no statutory basis for doing so.

In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES the application for default judgment. Since Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a cause of action, the Court STRIKES the Complaint in its entirety and grants Plaintiff leave to amend. An amended pleading that adequately states a cause of action will necessarily require material changes; therefore, it will need to be personally served on all defendants (including Defendant) who must be given the opportunity to respond. (Petty v. Manpower, Inc. (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 794, 798 [substantial amendment of complaint after default is not permitted without second service of process].) Accordingly, the Court sets an OSC re: Filing of Amended Complaint and Proof of Service of Summons for ___________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 3 of the Alhambra Courthouse.

Dated this 13th day of June 2025

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.