Hinga

Hinga v. Martinez CA2/2

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 23, 2022B317397California1,244 words

Opinion

Opinion

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of review and relevant law

California Code of Civil Procedure, “[s]ection 580, subdivision (a), limits a trial court’s jurisdiction to grant relief on a default judgment to the amount stated in the complaint. [Citations.] The amount of the default judgment ‘cannot exceed that demanded in the complaint.’” (Dhawan v. Biring (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 963, 968.) “The primary purpose of this section is to insure that defendants in cases which involve a default judgment have adequate notice of the judgments that may be taken against them. [Citation.] ‘If a judgment other than that which is demanded is taken against him, [the defendant] has been deprived of his day in court—a right to a hearing on the matter adjudicated.’ [Citations.]” (Becker v. S.P.V. Construction Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 489, 493; see also Finney v. Gomez (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 527, 534–537 [due process requires notice to the defaulting defendant of both the type and amount of relief sought].) “[A] default judgment rendered in violation of [Code of Civil Procedure] section 580 is void . . . because it is beyond the court’s jurisdiction to enter such a judgment.” (Dhawan v. Biring, supra, 241…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.