Falkenstein

DISCUSSION

Relying heavily upon Falahati, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th 823, Shipco argues that the default judgment was void because it was based upon a complaint that was not well- pleaded and failed to properly apprise Shipco of the nature of Falkenstein’s claims. We review this issue de novo. (Falahati, supra, at p. 828.) We agree with the trial court that Falahati is distinguishable. In that case, the Court of Appeal reversed a trial court order denying a defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment because “[t]he complaint on which [the default judgment was] based

2 failed to apprise [the defendant] of the nature of the plaintiffs’ demand against him and neither the [operative pleading] nor any subsequent notice informed the defendant of the amount of damages plaintiffs were seeking from him.” (Falahati, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at p. 828.) In contrast, here, the complaint sufficiently apprised Shipco of the nature of the claim asserted against it. The complaint alleged, albeit in a boilerplate fashion, that Shipco, in some capacity, engaged in wrongful conduct with respect to a cargo container that fell on Falkenstein, resulting in injury. It identified the specific cargo…