APRIL GUNCKEL vs DINORAH FLORES AHUMADA-GILLIVRAY

2025CLDF049461: APRIL GUNCKEL vs DINORAH FLORES AHUMADA-GILLIVRAY 05/26/2026 in Department 42 Motion to Amend Judgment (Damages Only)

Tentative Ruling: The motion to amend judgment is DENIED.

Discussion: Plaintiff moves to amend a default judgment to increase the damages award because Plaintiff failed to prove those damages as part of the default prove up. In support, Plaintiff relies on CCP sections 663 and 473. Section 663 provides:

A judgment or decree, when based upon a decision by the court, or the special verdict of a jury, may, upon motion of the party aggrieved, be set aside and vacated by the same court, and another and different judgment entered, for either of the following causes, materially affecting the substantial rights of the party and entitling the party to a different judgment: 1. Incorrect or erroneous legal basis for the decision, not consistent with or not supported by the facts; and in such case when the judgment is set aside, the statement of decision shall be amended and corrected.

2. A judgment or decree not consistent with or not supported by the special verdict. (Code Civ. Proc., § 663.) Plaintiff is not entitled to relief under Section 663, nor does she address the requirements of that code section.

Section 473 provides that a party may be relieved “from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against the party through the party's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473.) Relief cannot be granted under this code section either. First, Plaintiff is not requesting to be relieved from judgment. She is requesting an opportunity to prove additional damages and have them added to the judgment. The Court is aware of no authority that entitles Plaintiff to rely on section 473 for this purpose.

Second, failing to understand the requirements of proving damages does not constitute “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.” While a mistake of law can entitle a party to relief where the law is complex and debatable, mistakes based on lack of knowledge of the rules or unjustifiable negligence in the research of the law are generally not grounds for relief. (State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 611.)

The motion is denied.

1