Rodriguez v. Nam Min Cho, 236 Cal. App. 4th 742

Rodriguez sued Cho and Reliable Building Maintenance alleging unpaid overtime, retaliation, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and PAGA penalties; complaint sought damages "to be proved at trial" and a $10,000 statutory civil penalty.
A statement of damages served with the summons listed large dollar amounts (e.g., $1,000,000 emotional distress, $50,000 lost earnings, punitive $2,000,000), but the complaint itself did not specify a total damage figure aside from the $10,000 civil penalty.
Process server filed proofs of service: personal service on Reliable's agent and substituted service on Cho at his business by serving an office manager and mailing the papers. Defaults were entered against both defendants.
Rodriguez obtained a default judgment totaling $129,673.48 based on her prove-up, including back pay, interest, attorney fees, and general damages.
Over two years later Cho moved to set aside the default judgment, arguing improper/fraudulent service and that the judgment awarded damages beyond what was demanded in the complaint; the trial court denied relief. Rodriguez later filed an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment.
On appeal the court upheld the trial court's refusal to set aside the judgment on extrinsic-fraud/equity grounds but held the default judgment was void because it exceeded the damages actually demanded in the complaint and remanded with directions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether service was improper/extrinsic fraud justifying equitable relief from default	Rodriguez relied on process server's declarations showing substituted service and mailed copies; argued service presumptively valid	Cho argued he never received the papers, process server's declarations were false, and he was deprived of opportunity to defend	Court held Cho failed to rebut presumption of valid service or show extrinsic fraud; equitable relief denied (no abuse of discretion)
Whether default judgment is void because it exceeded damages demanded in the complaint	Rodriguez argued she could rely on the statement of damages and was not required to state amounts in complaint	Cho argued the action was not a "personal injury" or wrongful-death action subject to the statement-of-damages rule, so judgment must be limited to amounts in complaint	Court held wrongful-termination (public policy) action is not an "action to recover damages for personal injury" under §425.11; default judgment exceeded the complaint and is void; reversed and remanded with option to accept reduced judgment or amend complaint

Gibble v. Car-Lene Research, Inc., 67 Cal.App.4th 295 (equitable relief for extrinsic fraud requires meritorious defense, excuse, and diligence)
American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara, 199 Cal.App.4th 383 (registered process server's declaration creates presumption of valid service; substitute service rules)
Greenup v. Rodman, 42 Cal.3d 822 (default judgment greater than amount demanded is void)
Levine v. Smith, 145 Cal.App.4th 1131 (default judgment limited to amount pled when action is not a personal-injury/wrongful-death case)
Holmes v. General Dynamics Corp., 17 Cal.App.4th 1418 (wrongful-termination action primarily involves economic/property interests, not "personal injury" for comparable statutes)
Barton v. New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc., 43 Cal.App.4th 1200 (discussion of wrongful termination protecting personal rights but not determinative for §425.11 purposes)