Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 22STCV27042, Date: 2023-05-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV27042    Hearing Date: May 5, 2023    Dept: 31

PROCEEDINGS:     REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT

 

MOVING PARTY:  Plaintiff Dushanthie Jayamaha

RESP. PARTY:        None.

 

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT

 

TENTATIVE RULING

 

Plaintiff’s request for Default Judgment is DENIED.

 

BACKGROUND

 

On August 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants Brigada Builders, Andriy Shevlyakov, and Does 1 to 20.

 

Proof of Service for Defendants was filed on October 19, 2022.

 

On December 28, 2022, default was entered against Defendants.

 

Now Plaintiff moves for Default Judgment.

 

LEGAL STANDARD

 

Code of Civil Procedure section 585 permits entry of a judgment after a Defendant has failed to timely answer after being properly served.  A party seeking judgment on the default by the Court must file a Request for Court Judgment, and: (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.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800.)

 

MOTION

 

Proof of Service/Default: Yes

 

SUBMITTED: CRC 3.1800

 

  1. Use of JC Form CIV-100                                                       [Yes]
  2. Dismissal or judgment of non-parties to the judgment          [No]
  3. Declaration of non-military status for each defendant          [Yes]
  4. Summary of the case                                                               [Yes]
  5. 585(d) declarations/admissible evidence in support              [Yes]
  6. Exhibits (as necessary)                                                            [Yes]
  7. Interest computation (as necessary)                                        [N/A]
  8. Cost memorandum                                                                  [Yes]
  9. Request for attorney fees (Local Rule 3.214)                         [N/A]

 

Damages

$213,093.42

Punitive Damages

N/A

Interest

N/A

Attorneys’ fees

N/A

Costs

$830.50

TOTAL

$213,923.92

Other relief requested

N/A

 

Problems:

 

·         Complaint fails to state the amount of damages sought.

·         Doe Defendants have not been dismissed.

 

DISCUSSION 

 

Plaintiff’s Complaint is deficient as pled and precludes the Court from granting Default Judgment.

 

Section 425.10 requires that the amount of damages sought be stated in the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.10 [“If the recovery of money or damages is demanded, the amount demanded shall be stated.”].) Similarly in an action arising upon contract, judgment may only be entered “for the principal amount demanded in the complaint[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 585 subd. (a)

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint seeks special and general damages “according to proof” but fails to state a specific amount. “If no specific amount of damages is demanded, the prayer cannot insure adequate notice of the demands made upon the defendant. [Citation.] Consequently, a prayer for damages according to proof passes muster under section 580 only if a specific amount of damages is alleged in the body of the complaint.” (Becker v. S.P.V. Construction Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 489, 494.) Since no specific amount of damages is stated in Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendants have no notice of the damages sought.

 

Moreover, serving a statement of damages will not cure the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the notice requirements of section 580 subdivision (a). (See Dhawan v. Biring (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 963, 971.) “[A] statement of damages could not substitute for an amended complaint where the underlying claims did not involve personal injury or wrongful death.” (Id.) Accordingly, any judgment that the Court enters would be void. 

 

Lastly, Plaintiff’s request for Default Judgment is deficient because the Doe Defendants have not been dismissed and Plaintiff has not made an application for entry of separate relief on grounds that the claims are severable. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 579.)

 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request for Default Judgment is DENIED.

 

Conclusion

 

Plaintiff’s request for Default Judgment is DENIED.