Bohm, Matsen, Kegel & Aguilera v. Bonilla CA4/3

INTRODUCTION

Appellant Jose Bonilla appeals from a default judgment entered against him and in favor of a law firm, Bohm, Matsen, Kegel & Aguilera, LLP (the law firm), which represented him on contingency in several legal proceedings. After Bonilla fired it – and did not pay his legal fees – the law firm sued to collect them. Bonilla defaulted, and the law firm wound up with a $2.2 million default judgment. We reverse the judgment and send it back to the court for recalculation. Once again, we reiterate that obtaining a default is not the legal equivalent of hitting a fair ball into the stands, after which the plaintiff makes a pro forma trot around the bases. The Code of Civil Procedure requires a prove-up; therefore, a plaintiff seeking a default judgment must prove its entitlement to the amount requested. For its part, the trial court does not merely sign off on whatever amounts the plaintiff sets down on the judicial council form. The court must instead evaluate the supporting evidence. The law firm did not present evidence to support the amount of default damages. For this reason, the prejudgment interest and the attorney fee awards, which were based on the underlying…