SAUL ARREGUIN ET AL VS THAIWADHANA KASAORN

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC626997    Hearing Date: October 23, 2020    Dept: 26

As a preliminary matter, the Court reminds Plaintiff that “[e]lectronic documents must be electronically filed in PDF, text searchable format when technologically feasible without impairment of the document’s image.” (First Amended General Order re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil, 5/3/19.) Here, Plaintiff’s application for entry of judgment filed on August 6, 2020 is not text searchable. Any failure to comply with this aspect of the First Amended General Order in the future may result in the pleading at issue being stricken.

The Request for Entry of Default Judgment submitted on August 6, 2020 is rejected for the following reasons:

No request for dismissal (Judicial Council Form No. CIV-110) has been filed for all remaining defendants (including un-served Does 1-50). Plaintiff must file a CIV-110 as to Does 1-50.

The Court may not enter judgment in an amount exceeding the amount demanded in the Complaint. (CCP 585(b).) The Court may not grant relief not demanded in the complaint by default judgment even though that relief otherwise would have been proper. (CCP § 580(a); Airs Aromatics, LLC v. CBL Data Recovery Technologies, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 1013, 1018 (default judgment for sum in excess of that demanded in complaint is void). “It is fundamental to the concept of due process that a defendant be given notice of the existence of a lawsuit and notice of the specific relief which is sought in the complaint served upon him.” (Marriage of Lippel (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1160, 1166 [emphasis added].) Thus, for example, where the complaint does not request attorney fees, the court cannot award fees against a defaulting defendant. It makes no difference that the fees are awardable by statute. (Feminist Women's Health Ctr. v. Blythe (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1641, 1675).

Here, the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) gives notice of the following amounts of damages that Plaintiff seeks to recover:

• Special damages in the sum of “$12,25.00”

• Statutory damages in the sum of $ 15,000

• Relocation benefits in the sum of $20,500

The amount of statutory damages sought in the proposed judgment on form JUD-100 exceed these amounts stated in the FAC. Specifically, the proposed judgment requests $35,450, which is impermissible because this amount exceeds the statutory damages sought in the FAC ($15,000). Any amount of statutory damages to be awarded will be capped in the amount stated in the FAC ($15,000). In any event, no more than $5,000 of the requested statutory damages are supported. Plaintiffs have pled and proven entitlement to at most $5,000 of statutory damages under Civil Code section 1942.4(b)(1) for the wrongful 3-day notice. Plaintiffs fail to plead or prove any wrongful acts other than giving of the wrongful 3-day notice, and as such, there is no basis for awarding further statutory damages under Civ. Code § 1942.5(h)(2).

The amount of special damages sought in the default judgment package and application for default judgment exceed these amount of special damages stated in the FAC. Specifically, the application for default judgment requests a refund of $6,200 for rent paid and $5,670.86 for personal property damages. These amounts exceed the special damages sought in the FAC ($1225.00). Any amount of special damages to be awarded will be capped in the amount stated in the FAC ($1225.00).

Plaintiffs have also failed to substantiate the amounts of their claimed damages.

Plaintiffs reference but never filed Exhibits 1 through 7a. Exhibits 1-7a are missing from the request.

Plaintiffs’ request for a refund of $6,200 rent paid is unsupported. Plaintiffs are missing exhibits of rent amount paid and/or damages. As noted, Exhibits 1-7a are missing.

Plaintiffs request $5,670.86 for personal property damages, but only $4233.87 is supported. Exhibit 10a is illegible and Exhibit 10f is in Spanish and is unclear what value was actually paid. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1110, [“Exhibits written in a foreign language must be accompanied by an English translation, certified under oath by a qualified interpreter.”])

There is no explanation or substantiation of how Plaintiff arrived at an estimate of $10,000 for future medical expenses. In any event, no future medical expenses were claimed in the Statement of Damages served on Defendant. For these reasons, future medical expenses cannot be awarded.

Plaintiffs request general damages of $30,550 for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Plaintiffs have failed to justify the amount sought. The medical records submitted appear to indicate that the injury to Plaintiff Saul Arreguin was temporary. Moreover, exhibit 7a is missing. Finally, the declarations of Saul Arreguin and Ana Duenas do not describe pain, suffering, or any emotional consequence from Defendant’s acts.

Plaintiffs’ request for Relocation benefits under LARSO § 151.09, $20,450 is unsupported. Plaintiffs fail to allege in the complaint and prove in their default judgment package any facts relating to their income, age, length of tenancy, family status and/or disability status, which information is required to calculate relocation benefits under LARSO § 151.09(G). Plaintiffs do not submit evidence of their household income and how it compares to the Area Median Income. Finally, Plaintiffs appear to base their request for relocation benefits on when they were evicted, but they fail to identify the date of eviction. As such, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they are “qualified tenants” within the meaning of LARSO.

Within 30 days Plaintiffs must submit a revised default judgment and proposed judgment on form JUD-100 correcting all the defaults identified above.

The OSC re entry of default judgment is continued to January 22, 2021 at 8:30 am.

Court Clerk to give notice.

Case Number: BC626997    Hearing Date: March 13, 2020    Dept: 26

Arreguin et al v. Kasaorn et al., BC626997

The Request for Entry of Default Judgment submitted on January 10, 2020 is denied without prejudice for the following reasons:

Judgment Form

No Proposed judgment form has been submitted.

Pending Defendants

No request for dismissal (Judicial Council Form No. CIV-110) has been filed for all remaining defendants (including un-served does and defendants who have appeared). Specifically, the Doe Defendants of the First Amended Complaint remain pending.

Lack of Military Declaration

The military declaration on form CIV-100 has not been executed.

Unclear Damages

It is unclear what damages Plaintiffs seeks. The First Amended Complaint filed on August 15, 2019 lists general damages according to proof, and a total of $36, 225.00. However, there appears to be a typo in one of the damages requested making damages possibly $47,250.00. The amended statement of damages filed on August 15, 2019 lists $78,175.86 of damages. The CIV-100 form filed on January 10, 2020 lists $64,040.86. Finally, Plaintiffs’ delcarations filed on January 10, 2020 only mention damages for a total of $43,540.86. As Plaintiffs have not filed any proposed judgment on form JUD-100, it is unclear what amount of damages Plaintiffs seek.

Damages

Plaintiff is missing a ledger, an accounting or invoices, from the original creditor, showing how the balance due was calculated. The documents submitted do not establish the judgment amount requested.

Plaintiffs request general damages of $30,550 for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, but Plaintiffs have not provided evidence to support such an amount. Plaintiffs’ declaration do not mention or give any description of any pain or suffering.

Plaintiffs request Statutory Damages of $15,000, but Plaintiffs have failed to provide any explanation as to this amount of statutory damages

Plaintiffs request for $5,5670.86 for personal property damages. Plaintiffs have attached unauthenticated receipts. It is unclear what the receipts are for, and some of the receipts attached are in Spanish. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1110, [“Exhibits written in a foreign language must be accompanied by an English translation, certified under oath by a qualified interpreter.”]) Further no basis has been stated in the declarations to explain how Defendants’ conduct caused these personal property damages. If the receipts are for replacement of personal property, Plaintiffs have failed to explain what items of personal property that they owned had to be replaced and why.

Plaintiff is to file a default judgment package, including a proposed judgment on form JUD-100 and deliver a courtesy copy to Department 26 within 3 weeks.

The OSC re entry of default judgment is continued to May 12, 2020 at 8:30 am.

Court Clerk to give notice.