Jane Doe vs Nestor Villalobos Munoz

Case Number

22CV03263

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 09/08/2023 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Default

Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING: The request for hearing is denied.

Background:

This action commenced on August 23, 2022, by the filing of the complaint by plaintiff Jane Doe against defendant Nestor Villalobos Munoz. The complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Sexual Battery on a Minor; (2) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (3) False Imprisonment; and (4) Negligence.

As alleged in the complaint: Munoz sexually molested, assaulted, and battered plaintiff in 1976 and 1977, when plaintiff was six and seven years old. (Complaint, ¶¶ 6,7.) On July 22, 2021, Munoz pled “no contest” to two felony counts of lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 years old, with respect to a different child than plaintiff, and was sentenced to state prison on September 9, 2021. (Complaint, ¶ 9.)

Munoz was personally served with plaintiff’s complaint on September 8, 2022, at California Men’s Colony in San Luis Obispo. Munoz failed to file any responsive pleading.

On October 11, 2022, plaintiff filed a request for entry of default which was entered the same day. On May 3, 2023, plaintiff filed a declaration in support of entry of judgment against Munoz pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 585, subdivision (d). The following day, May 4, 2023, plaintiff filed a request for court judgment. All of the documents were properly served on Munoz.

On May 5, 2023, judgment by default was entered in favor of plaintiff and against Munoz in the amount of $500,000.00.

On July 12, 2023, Munoz filed the present “Request for Hearing on Default Motion Entered Against Defendant.” By way of the request, Munoz claims that he made several attempts to schedule a hearing by dialing the court’s phone number as he was instructed to do but was unsuccessful. Munoz argues that due to his incarceration he has had difficulty due to limited communication and that he requested help from the litigation officer at the prison with no results. Munoz states that he does not speak or write English, so he did not understand the court’s instructions.

Plaintiff opposes the request on the basis that Munoz does not provide any legal or factual basis for the relief requested and that he has long had actual notice of plaintiff’s complaint, request for default, and the default judgment.

Analysis:

Munoz presents no legal authority for his request that the court set a hearing on the default entered in plaintiff’s favor. As noted above, Munoz was properly served with the complaint and all of the default documents, yet he failed to file any response to any of them. “California law does not give defaulting defendants the right to contest the amount of damages. Our authorities indicate that a defendant who defaults is “ ‘out of court’ ” and not entitled to participate in the prove-up hearing.” (Sass v. Cohen (2020) 10 Cal.5th 861, 882.)  

The judgment was properly entered and Munoz, due to his failure to respond to the complaint, is not entitled to a hearing regarding the default. As such, the request must be denied.