Sickle v. Gilbert
196 Cal. App. 4th 1495
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Van Sickle sued former attorney Gilbert for accounting, breach of fiduciary duty, and related relief based on mismanagement of divorce-property assets; relief sought included an accounting and damages but no specific amount in the complaint.
- Gilbert defaulted after being served but was later set aside; Van Sickle obtained a default judgment exceeding $2 million, including punitive damages.
- Discovery misconduct by Gilbert (nonresponse to interrogatories and production demands, failure to provide documents to the court-appointed accountant) led to a terminating sanction and a separate default judgment.
- The trial court granted a terminating sanction, struck Gilbert’s answer, and entered default; the court later conducted a prove-up for damages.
- On appeal, the court held the default judgment must be reversed because Van Sickle did not serve a statement of damages and did not plead a specific amount in the complaint, and thus could not obtain a valid default judgment; the case is remanded to permit amendment and service of a damages amount.
- Vickilyn Gilbert’s motion to intervene was untimely and dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the default judgment violates notice requirements for damages. | Van Sickle argues Ely requires a damages notice in an accounting action. | Gilbert contends no damages notice was served and the default is valid. | Default judgment void; damages notice required. |
| Whether the terminating sanctions and default were appropriate given discovery abuses. | Van Sickle relied on sanctions to compel discovery. | Gilbert contends he largely complied; sanctions were excessive. | No abuse of discretion; terminating sanction upheld. |
| What is the proper remedy since the default cannot stand without damages notice? | Ely requires setting aside default or amending to state damages; Cassel does not apply. | If damages notice was lacking, remedy is to vacate and allow amendment. | Reverse default judgment and allow amendment; set aside default. |
| Whether Cassel v. Sullivan supersedes Ely in accounting actions. | Cassel supports not needing precise amounts in certain accounting contexts. | Cassel is distinguishable; Ely controls in accounting actions against a party with less information. | Cassel rejected; Ely governs; require damages notice in accounting actions. |
| Whether Vickilyn Gilbert’s appeal to intervene was timely. | N/A | N/A | Untimely; dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ely v. Gray, 224 Cal.App.3d 1257 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (default judgment in accounting requires notice of damages when no specific amount is pleaded)
- Cassel v. Sullivan, Roche & Johnson, 76 Cal.App.4th 1157 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (partnership accounting not always require precise damages in complaint; Cassel distinguished Ely here)
- Evan v. Greenup v. Rodman, 42 Cal.3d 822 (Cal. 1986) (default judgments must not exceed pleaded relief; 580(d) limits default relief)
- Andrus v. Estrada, 39 Cal.App.4th 1030 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (past conduct may be considered for sanctions if not previously punished)
- Ostling v. Loring, 27 Cal.App.4th 1731 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (modify judgment to the amount warranted or vacate and allow amendment)
- Greenup v. Rodman, 42 Cal.3d 822 (Cal. 1986) (discretion on costs; notice and damages in default matters)
- Finney v. Gomez, 111 Cal.App.4th 527 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) ( Andresen rationale; notice in form actions vs. accounting)
- Julius Schifaugh IV Consulting Service, Inc. v. Avaris Capital, Inc., 164 Cal.App.4th 1393 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (permissible to vacate default and allow amended complaint when appropriate)