Sass v. Cohen, 10 Cal.5th 861

Sass (plaintiff) alleged a Marvin agreement with Cohen (defendant) and sought an accounting and half-share of identified assets (Hollywood house, Oakley house, Tag Strategic LLC, Rock & Reilly stock) but did not plead specific dollar amounts in the complaint.
Defendants defaulted; at the prove-up the trial court awarded substantial monetary damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interest, costs, and declared a constructive trust over Oakley property.
Cohen moved to vacate, arguing the default judgment exceeded the relief demanded; the trial court denied reliance on Cassel v. Sullivan (holding accounting plaintiffs need not state dollar amounts).
The Court of Appeal reversed, holding accounting claims are not exempt from the section 580 limitation that default relief cannot exceed the amount demanded, and vacated the default judgment.
The California Supreme Court granted review to resolve how CCP §580 applies to accounting actions and whether Cassel should be followed; it affirmed the Court of Appeal, requiring a dollar amount be pleaded to support default monetary relief, and disapproved Cassel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a plaintiff bringing an accounting may obtain monetary relief on default without pleading a specific dollar amount	Sass: pleading an accounting and claiming a fractional share of identified assets (e.g., 50% of value) gives adequate notice of maximum exposure; formal dollar notice is unnecessary	Cohen: §580 and related statutes require plaintiffs to state the dollar amount sought so defendants have formal notice of maximum liability before default	Held: A plaintiff seeking monetary relief via an accounting must plead a specific dollar amount (or estimate capping recovery) to support a default money judgment; pleading only a fractional share of assets is insufficient
Whether courts must compare award vs. demand on an aggregate basis or item-by-item when assessing excess of default judgment	Sass argued the Court of Appeal’s calculations were appropriate (or that her pleadings supported the amounts)	Cohen sought recalculation consistent with §580 ceiling principles	Held: The Court declined to decide the aggregate vs. item-by-item comparison question here; remanded for recalculation consistent with the requirement that pleaded dollar amounts cap default recovery

Greenup v. Rodman, 42 Cal.3d 822 (Cal. 1986) (§580’s aim is to guarantee defaulting parties formal notice of the maximum judgment that may be assessed)
Becker v. S.P.V. Construction Co., 27 Cal.3d 489 (Cal. 1980) (plaintiff must state a specific dollar amount in the complaint to limit default damages; “according to proof” alone is insufficient)
Burtnett v. King, 33 Cal.2d 805 (Cal. 1949) (default judgments must conform to statutory limits; courts lack jurisdiction to grant relief beyond pleaded demand)
In re Marriage of Lippel, 51 Cal.3d 1160 (Cal. 1990) (strict construction of §580; marital dissolution forms create distinct notice considerations but do not broadly exempt §580)
Cassel v. Sullivan, Roche & Johnson, 76 Cal.App.4th 1157 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (held accounting plaintiffs need not plead dollar amounts; disapproved by the Supreme Court)
Teselle v. McLoughlin, 173 Cal.App.4th 156 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (describing accounting actions as requiring an accounting where balances due can only be ascertained by accounting)
Ely v. Gray, 224 Cal.App.3d 1257 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (accounting plaintiffs may include an estimate of maximum damages and be bound by it to satisfy notice)