Court Opinion

ID: 9566102
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:33:57.649407+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:10.203639
License: Public Domain

*436MOSK,J.
—I dissent.
In the Old West the technique was said to be: “hang him first; give him a trial later.” Here we have a modern variation of that theme: “demand payment of money damages first; tell him the amount later.”
The majority conclude that unless a plaintiff has specified the amount of general and special damages in the complaint, he or she recovers nothing when the defendant defaults. In so deciding, the majority take an already absurd statutory scheme and heap dubious policy atop it, to the detriment of California plaintiffs and conscientious defendants but to the benefit of the fleet-footed absconder.
Code of Civil Procedure section 425.10’ expressly forbids a personal injury plaintiff to allege the amount of damages sought. Nor, if we read the statute strictly, may the complaint pray even for the jurisdictional minimum.1
2 As a result, henceforth personal injury plaintiffs are faced with a dilemma. They can violate section 425.10 by specifying the damages amount in the complaint. (See Uva v. Evans (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 356, 360 [147 Cal.Rptr. 795].) They can pray for the jurisdictional minimum and risk a finding that they have violated section 425.10. (Cf. Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 830 [231 Cal.Rptr. 220, 726 P.2d 1295].) Or they can obey section 425.10, remain silent, and hope they will be able to serve a statement of general, special and punitive damages on the defendant.3 But I shall show that serving that statement may well be difficult. The rule forbidding any statement of the damages amount in a personal injury complaint is harsh enough. Today we compound a plaintiff’s dilemma and create a strong incentive for a defendant to default.
*437I turn to the specific flaws in the majority opinion. The majority declare that Morgan v. Southern Cal Rapid Transit Dist. (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 976 [237 Cal.Rptr. 756] (hereafter Morgan) reads Greenup v. Rodman, supra, 42 Cal.3d 822 (hereafter Greenup), too broadly. In my view, it is the majority who misread Greenup. The Morgan opinion correctly held that if a personal injury plaintiff seeking a default fails to properly serve a statement of special and general damages, he or she is nonetheless entitled to the jurisdictional minimum in the court in which the suit was filed. (192 Cal.App.3d at p. 987.) Greenup does not bar that conclusion.
Greenup sued for personal injuries and other torts. She won a default after Rodman’s answer was stricken as a sanction for abominable behavior and failure to comply with court rulings. Her complaint did not specify the amount of compensatory damages, but sought $100,000 in punitive damages. It is unclear whether the punitive damages demand was for personal injury, the other torts, or both. The trial court awarded Greenup $676,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. Greenup does not say whether some or all of that award was for personal injury, but presumably some of it was, because Greenup alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Court of Appeal affirmed. We reduced Greenup’s award to $15,000 for compensatory and $100,000 for punitive damages without specifically disallowing compensation for personal injury.
In the reflection of the majority’s optically distorted mirror, the key paragraph of Greenup on which the majority rely is barely recognizable.
Greenup declares: “Each of plaintiff’s causes of action, with the exception of her personal injury claim, concluded with the allegation that she suffered damage ‘in an amount that exceeds the jurisdictional requirements of this court.’... By her allegations, plaintiff thus gave sufficient notice to defendants that she claimed at least $15,000 in compensatory damages. While an award in excess of $15,000 would be improper, a judgment in that amount was within the jurisdiction of the court.” (42 Cal. 3d at p. 830, italics added.)
The majority quote this language to conclude that Greenup “pleaded general damages, specifically stated to be in excess of the court’s jurisdictional requirements.” (Maj. opn., ante, p. 433.) The plain language of Green-up in the previous paragraph belies that statement. It is clear that Greenup did not allege the amount of her personal injury damages, or even pray for the jurisdictional minimum as compensation for personal injury. (42 Cal. 3d at pp. 825, 830.) No doubt Greenup avoided any mention of the amount of *438damages in her personal injury claim precisely because she believed correctly that section 425.10 forbade the reference.4
Immediately following the material quoted two paragraphs above, Green-up stated, “(See Engebretson & Co. v. Harrison, supra, 125 Cal.App.3d at p. 444.)” (42 Cal.3d at p. 830.) From this bare reference the majority divine: “Indeed, for its rationale Greenup cited and relied in large part on Engebretson & Co. v. Harrison. . . , a case that held that a plaintiff’s prayer for damages ‘in excess of $5,000’ entitled that plaintiff to a default judgment of $5,000, but no more.” (Maj. opn., ante, p. 433, italics added.) The implication is that the pleadings in Greenup were closer to those in Engebretson & Co. v. Harrison (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 436 [178 Cal.Rptr. 77] (hereafter Engebretson) than to those here. I disagree.
First, Engebretson was a securities matter, not a personal injury case. (125 Cal.App.3d at pp. 438, 440.) Second, the paragraph of Engebretson referred to in Greenup decided an entirely different question: whether the court had subject-matter jurisdiction.5
Thus it would have been impossible for Greenup to rely “in large part” on Engebretson. Moreover, Engebretson’s reference to default judgments was itself a mere aside. It is therefore no surprise that Greenup’s citation to Engebretson is qualified by “see,” a signal that in Greenup we believed the reference was to a mere dictum. (Cal. Style Manual (3d ed. 1986) § 101, p. 69.) In short, Greenup did not rely heavily on Engebretson-, it reached its conclusion independently.
Hence, only by misreading the facts of Greenup and by exaggerating Greenup’s reliance on Engebretson can the majority conclude that Morgan read Greenup too broadly. We must either forthrightly overrule Greenup or let it stand. I prefer the latter course. Morgan concluded, “In Greenup, the *439court held the usual remedy would be to reduce the default judgment to the amount demanded in the complaint or, if no amount is demanded, to the minimum jurisdiction of the superior court.” (192 Cal.App.3d at p. 987.) That is indeed the only rational interpretation of Greenup. Morgan thus gave Greenup a more objective reading than the majority give it today.
Having shown that Greenup may not be relied on for the proposition that a personal injury plaintiff recovers nothing after failing to serve a statement of special and general damages on a defendant, I turn to the relevant statute to ascertain whether it compels this result. Only the most straitened reading could lead to the conclusion that it does.
Section 425.11 provides, “If no request is made for ... a statement setting forth the nature and amount of damages being sought, the plaintiff shall give notice to the defendant of the amount of special and general damages sought to be recovered . . . before a default may be taken . . . .” I do not dispute that section 425.11 requires some sort of notice of the amount of damages. But the statute can logically be read only to require giving a defendant notice of the precise amount of damages before a default may be taken for the full amount sought. I adhere to the conclusion of Greenup and Morgan that when a plaintiff sues in superior court the filing of the action provides sufficient notice that at least the jurisdictional minimum in compensatory damages is sought.
Of course, the careful plaintiff will serve the defendant with a statement of damages as soon as they can be ascertained—with the complaint if possible. But the statement requires some specificity. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 1990) § 6:172.1, p. 6-38, & form 6:T, p. 6-109; see also Plotitsa v. Superior Court (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 755, 761-762 [189 Cal.Rptr. 769].) If it is not possible to serve a reasonably specific and accurate statement of damages with the complaint, later service of the statement may be difficult. The law now requires personal service of the statement of damages. (Twine v. Compton Supermarket (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 514, 517 [224 Cal.Rptr. 562]; Plotitsa v. Superior Court, supra, 140 Cal.App.3d at pp. 759-761.) A defendant once burned by service of the complaint will be twice shy of answering an evening knock at the door.6
A hypothetical scenario illustrates some of the difficulties personal injury plaintiffs will now face. Plaintiff sues for personal injury damages and, *440faithful to section 425.10, makes no statement about the amount of damages. Both parties correctly believe that the actual damages are $25,000, but the loss cannot be quantified in good faith at the time the complaint is served, so no statement of damages accompanies the complaint. Defendant does not answer. Instead, intending to default, defendant decides to take a long vacation. Plaintiff cannot locate defendant, but neither can plaintiff seek entry of default, because he or she has not personally served the statement of damages. Plaintiff therefore takes nothing, at least for an indefinite period. Defendant incurs only the cost of a carefree vacation, at a great discount from the amount owed.
It is true that a plaintiff can still seek service by publication or some form of substituted service (see Plotitsa v. Superior Court, supra, 140 Cal.App.3d at p. 761), but substituted service on a fleet-footed defendant can be difficult and service by publication is procedurally cumbersome (§ 415.50).
The majority rely on three cases in support of their conclusion that Morgan read Greenup too broadly. (Maj. opn., ante, p. 434.) But two of these cases (Plotitsa v. Superior Court, supra, 140 Cal.App.3d 755; Petty v. Manpower, Inc. (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 794 [156 CaI.Rptr. 622]) preceded Greenup. Thus it is not surprising that, as the majority concede, the cases do not attempt to cite or interpret Greenup. (Maj. opn., ante, p. 434, fn. 6.) The third case (Hamm v. Elkin (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1343 [242 CaI.Rptr. 545]) is a very short opinion that does not seem to have been aware of either Greenup or Morgan. I am not persuaded this meager authority from the Courts of Appeal justifies abandoning either Greenup, a Supreme Court opinion, or the well-reasoned Morgan decision.
Ultimately, the solution to this problem lies with the Legislature. The procedural hurdles to recovery now greatly outweigh the Legislature’s apparent concern about the embarrassment to personal injury defendants of adverse publicity stemming from a lawsuit with a prayer for monumental damages. (See Jones v. Interstate Recovery Service (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 925, 928 [206 Cal.Rptr. 924]; Review of Selected 1974 California Legislation (1975) 6 Pacific L.J. 125, 216-217.)
A statutory scheme that forbids a party to provide useful information—a form of compulsory silence—and that creates anomalous results of the type reached today urgently needs reexamination. Moreover, in a newsworthy case a lawyer or party can always call a press conference and trumpet the claim to the heavens, or at least to the terrestrial media. Thus not only are sections 425.10 and 425.11 bad law and bad policy, they are an ineffective means of implementing the Legislature’s apparent intent. Nor can they be *441made effective: I cannot conceive of legislation that could constitutionally prevent plaintiffs with sensational personal injury damage claims from announcing those claims in any forum whatsoever.

 Further unlabeled statutory references are to this code.

 Section 425.10 provides in relevant part: “A complaint or cross-complaint shall contain both of the following:
“(b) A demand for judgment for the relief to which the pleader claims he is entitled. If the recovery of money or damages be demanded, the amount thereof shall be stated, unless the action is brought in the superior court to recover actual or punitive damages for personal injury or wrongful death, in which case the amount thereof shall not be stated.”

 Section 425.11 requires a statement only of “the amount of special and general damages sought to be recovered . . . before a default may be taken . . . .” However, now that section 425.10 forbids all mention of punitive as well as actual damages (see 4 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Pleading, § 463, p. 504), no doubt the statement must include punitive damages as well. The majority’s conclusion that “plaintiffs’ claim for $500,000 per plaintiff in punitive damages in itself properly put this case before the superior court” (maj. opn., ante, p. 434) is thus correct only if the word “properly” is excised: it was error to include the specific monetary demand for punitive damages. But the “error” is not surprising. A pleading system that disfavors the furnishing of vital information defies common sense and is inherently counterintuitive.

 It is unclear whether Greenup prayed for a specific amount of punitive damages for personal injury, though there is no reason to believe she was any less meticulous with respect to punitive damages than actual. If she was, it was an understandable mistake. (See fn. 3, ante.)

 “Engebretson contends that the prayer of Harrison’s original complaint seeking damages ‘in excess of $5,000’ was insufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction in the superior court. Engebretson relies on authorities holding that such a prayer will support a judgment for no more than $5,000, and on the requirement (before July 1, 1979) that the amount in controversy in an action in superior court exceed $5,000. . . . The contention is without merit. While it is true that the prayer will support a default judgment for $5,000 only, and that superior court jurisdiction required, at the time in question, an amount in controversy in excess of $5,000, it does not follow that the prayer of the complaint was insufficient. ... If Engebretson’s contention were accepted, a request for damages ‘in excess of $5,001’ would be sufficient, but a prayer for damages ‘in excess of $5,000’ would not. To so hold would be an insult to common sense and a trap for the unwary.” (125 Cal.App.3d at pp. 444-445.)

 Moreover, there is a controversy about whether 30 days’ notice of the damages amount is required before a default may be taken. (Compare Connelly v. Castillo (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1583, 1589 [236 Cal.Rptr. 112], with Plotitsa v. Superior Court, supra, 140 Cal.App.3d at p. 761.) Today’s decision does not resolve that issue.