Post-Judgment Procedure for Referees

Yu v. Superior Court, No. B304011 (D2d3 Oct. 27, 2020)

The parties here agreed to resolve their dispute before a referee under a general judicial reference authorized by Code of Civil Procedure § 638(a). The referee issued an award of about $7 million to Plaintiff and submitted his findings and conclusions to the trial court. The trial court, however, found that the referee’s was tainted by legal error. Before judgment was entered, the court ruled that a new trial would be permitted and that the new trial would be before the court, not the referee. Plaintiff took a writ.

According to Proof Ain’t Worth Jack

Yu v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., No. G054522 (D4d3 Jan. 4., 2019)

Although basically everyone does it, it’s not really proper to to demand unquantified “damages according to proof” in a complaint. In most cases, Code of Civil Procedure § 425.10(a) requires a demand for money damages to state the amount of the demand. But it usually doesn’t matter, because a court can award relief irrespective of the prayer. § 580(a). Except, of course, in the case of a default judgment, for which an award more than the amount demanded is void as a matter of law. Id.; see also § 585(a), (b). Which means, effectively, if you allege “according to proof” you’ll need to amend to put in a number and re-serve process before you take a default. Or else you get zero.

The complaint here said according to proof and nobody bothered to amend to put in a number. So Plaintiff’s $1.2 million default judgment on a third party indemnity cross-claim assigned to her by the original defendant is void. Nor was the judgment saved by the fact that the cross-claim incorporated the original complaint—which contained a $10 million demand—by reference. The incorporation was expressly “for identification and informational purposes only.” Even if the cross-complaint could theoretically incorporate a demand contained in some other pleading—which seems like a questionable way to give notice—the reference here was too vague and equivocal to meet the general elements of the incorporation by reference doctrine.

Affirmed.