Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: BC721785, Date: 2022-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC721785    Hearing Date: August 23, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.         BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Jose Carlos Rosales (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Woodbury University (“Woodbury”) and Angel Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”) for damages arising out of an incident that occurred while Plaintiff was working for his employer, Brightview Landscape Services, LLC (“Brightview”). Plaintiff was employed by Brightview as a gardener and maintenance worker and was working at Woodbury when Gonzalez, working at Woodbury as a security guard, struck Plaintiff with a golf cart. Plaintiff added Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. (“Securitas”) as a Doe defendant.

Woodbury was served with the summons, complaint, and related papers by personal service on August 9, 2019. Dismissals were entered against Defendants Gonzalez and Securitas as well as Does 2 through 25 on March 12, 2020. Default was entered against Woodbury on January 7, 2022.

On January 7 and 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant application for default judgment against Woodbury.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

When a defendant has been served and no answer, demurrer, or certain motion has been filed within the time specified in the summons, the clerk shall enter the default of the defendant.  (Code of Civ. Proc., § 585, subd. (b).)  The court shall then render judgment in the plaintiff’s favor, not exceeding the amount stated in the statement of damages, as appears by the evidence to be just.  (Ibid.) 

III.      DISCUSSION

Here, Plaintiff seeks a default judgment against Woodbury for $44,361.00, consisting of $33,863.00 in general damages, $10,063.00 in special damages, and $435 in costs.

Based on the evidence submitted, Plaintiff has shown the following. Due to the accident, Plaintiff filed a workers’ compensation claim to pursue medical treatment to recover from his injuries. (Second Amended Declaration ¶ 4; February 27, 2020 Declaration, Exh. 3.) His workers’ compensation insurance carrier ACE/ESIS paid for medical bills in the amount of $17,428.90. (Second Amended Declaration ¶ 6; February 27, 2020 Declaration, Exh. 6.) Plaintiff also incurred a medical lien in the amount of $7,503 to treat his orthopedic symptoms. (Second Amended Declaration ¶ 5; February 27, 2020 Declaration, Exh. 4.) Plaintiff further asserts that he lost income in the amount of $7,680 as a result of his injuries. (Second Amended Declaration ¶¶ 1, 7; February 27, 2020 Declaration, Exhs. 1.) Plaintiff also contends that his past emotional distress and pain and suffering damages total $13,800. (Second Amended Declaration ¶ 8.) Elsewhere in his declaration, Plaintiff claims that his future pain and suffering damages equate to $20,000 based on the long-term effects of his injuries will have on him. (Second Amended Declaration ¶¶ 19-23; October 5, 2020 Declaration, Exh. 6.) Thus, inclusive of the amounts paid by his workers compensation insurance, the total amount would be $66,411 plus costs of $435. Ultimately, the requested judgment is less that this amount, totaling $44,361.

Accordingly, assuming that the requested judgment amount is correct, the application for default judgment is GRANTED. To avoid the risk of double-recovery, of the total amount requested per the judgment, the amounts of $17,428.90 (workers’ compensation medical specials) and $5,120 (2/3 of the claimed lost wages) shall be held in trust for the benefit of the workers’ compensation carrier ACE/ESIS.

IV.      CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s application for default judgment is GRANTED. Of the total amount requested per the judgment, the amounts of $17,428.90 (workers’ compensation medical specials) and $5,120 (2/3 of the claimed lost wages) shall be held in trust for the benefit of the workers’ compensation carrier ACE/ESIS.

Moving party to give notice. 

            Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court’s 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.