Dhawan v. Biring
241 Cal. App. 4th 963
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Dhawan sued Biring (and HealthWest, Inc.) in 2004 on contract/fraud claims; the complaint prayed for general and special damages "according to proof" and punitive damages, but did not state a specific compensatory amount.
- Defaults were entered against defendants in February 2005; an initial prove-up hearing in June 2005 led the court to vacate the prior defaults because no statement of damages had been filed.
- In August 2005 Dhawan served a separate statement of damages identifying specific amounts (including emotional distress and a reserved punitive damages claim); the court entered default judgment on September 12, 2005 for $1,924,008.64 in compensatory damages (no punitive or emotional distress awarded).
- Biring moved to vacate the default judgment in 2013 under Code Civ. Proc. § 473(d), arguing the judgment exceeded the amount demanded in the complaint in violation of § 580; the trial court granted the motion in May 2014 and denied reconsideration.
- Dhawan appealed; the Court of Appeal reviewed de novo whether the default judgment was void for exceeding the damages alleged in the complaint and whether a separately served statement of damages could satisfy § 580 where the claims were not for personal injury or wrongful death.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a separately served statement of damages can satisfy § 580 when the complaint does not state a damages amount and the claims are not for personal injury or wrongful death | Dhawan: Service of a statement of damages (or the § 425.115 form for punitive damages) provided actual/formal notice and thus satisfied § 580 | Biring: § 580 requires the amount be stated in the complaint (or the statutorily specified statements only apply in PI/wrongful death or punitive-damage contexts); a separate statement is insufficient here | Court: Statement of damages does not satisfy § 580 in non-personal-injury/wrongful-death cases; judgment exceeded complaint and was void |
| Whether the default judgment (exceeding the complaint) is void or merely voidable, affecting timeliness and relief available | Dhawan: If any defect existed it made the judgment voidable, not void, so § 473(b) time limits apply | Biring: A judgment exceeding the amount demanded is beyond the court’s jurisdiction and therefore void and subject to collateral attack at any time | Court: Judgment in excess of amount demanded is void (not merely voidable) and may be set aside under § 473(d) at any time |
Key Cases Cited
- Greenup v. Rodman, 42 Cal.3d 822 (Cal. 1986) (strict construction of § 580; default judgment greater than amount demanded is void)
- Becker v. S.P.V. Construction Co., 27 Cal.3d 489 (Cal. 1980) (§ 580 requires a specific amount in the complaint; actual notice cannot substitute for an amended complaint)
- Electronic Funds Solutions v. Murphy, 134 Cal.App.4th 1161 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (separate statement of damages cannot satisfy § 580 in non–personal-injury cases; default judgment reversed)
- Rodriguez v. Cho, 236 Cal.App.4th 742 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (default judgment exceeding complaint is void; statement of damages insufficient absent PI/wrongful death)
- Matera v. McLeod, 145 Cal.App.4th 44 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (short interval between service of statement of damages and default entry violated due process; declined to decide whether statement can substitute for amended complaint in non-PI cases)
- Levine v. Smith, 145 Cal.App.4th 1131 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (default judgment exceeding amount demanded is void and subject to collateral attack)
- Sole Energy Co. v. Hodges, 128 Cal.App.4th 199 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (statements of damages are limited to PI and wrongful death cases)
- Stein v. York, 181 Cal.App.4th 320 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (default judgment greater than amount demanded is void)
- In re Marriage of Lippel, 51 Cal.3d 1160 (Cal. 1990) (§ 580 interpreted to deprive trial court of jurisdiction to enter judgment beyond amount demanded)