2015-00178700-CU-PO
Tanya Olivares vs. Ragevendra Singh
Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Set Aside Default
Filed By: Singh, Karen
APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Although the court denies Defendant Singh’s motion to set aside the default, default judgment and all orders entered in 2018, the judgment appears improperly to award damages in excess of the damages set forth in Plaintiff Olivares’ 11/12/15 Statement of Damages. (See Matera v. McLeod (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 44, 60-61; see also Debbie S. v. Ray (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 193, 198-199 [documents other than the Statement of Damages under CCP § 425.11 do not provide valid, constructive notice of damages sought for purposes of default judgment].) Consequently, and subject to arguments at the time of hearing, the court intends to modify the judgment by reducing damages from $1,265,997 to $1,024,000.
Defendant and Judgment Creditor Raghvendra Singh’s (Singh) motion to set aside default, default judgment and other orders is DENIED.
Plaintiff Tanya Olivares’ (Olivares) late-filed, late-served opposition is STRICKEN.
Singh’s answer was stricken as a discovery sanction. (See Order of 10/12/17.) Singh’s default and default judgment were subsequently entered. Singh now moves to set aside the default and default judgment on several grounds, each of which lacks merit.
Singh argues first that her default and default judgment were improperly entered without notice to her. Once Singh’s answer was stricken, she was not entitled to any advance notice that her default or default judgment would be entered.
Singh’s further jurisdictional argument, that Judge Abbott was not entitled to play a role in striking her answer or facilitating her default because he was the Case Management Judge, is baseless. Jurisdiction vests in the superior court as a whole, not in any particular division or department. Hence, Judge Abbott was authorized to enter orders against Singh.
Next, Singh purports to argue the merits of the case, i.e., that the plaintiff should not have been on the premises at the time she sustained her injuries, and that other parties share responsibility for the plaintiff’s injuries. These argument do not provide a ground on which to set aside the default or default judgment.
Singh argues next that the judgment is void because she never communicated with the plaintiff. This argument is irrelevant. A plaintiff’s familiarity with the defendant is not a precondition to mounting or prevailing in a civil action.
Finally, Singh argues that the judgment should be set aside because the plaintiff’s allegations neither stated a cause of action nor supported the relief demanded. The court has reviewed the amended complaint and concludes that the allegations state a cause of action for negligence/premises liability. Hence, the court rejects Singh’s final argument.
Disposition
The motion is DENIED.
The judgment against Singh shall be reduced to the amount of $1,025,276.84 ($1,024,000 + costs of $1,276.84).
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order granting the motion is required.
Olivares shall lodge an amended judgment for the court’s signature