Hinga v. Martinez CA2/2

Filed 8/23/22 Hinga v. Martinez CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

NICHOLAS HINGA, B317397

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19STCV33982) v.

OZ DAVID MARTINEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Richard L. Fruin, Jr., Judge. Reversed.

Law Office of Kenneth I. Gross & Associates and Thomas D. Shambaugh for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. ______________________________

Defendant and appellant Oz David Martinez appeals from a trial court order denying his motion to vacate the default judgment entered against him and in favor of plaintiff and respondent Nicholas Hinga. Defendant argues that the trial court erroneously awarded plaintiff monetary damages when his complaint only sought to quiet title. We agree. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In September 2019, plaintiff filed a verified complaint against defendant and others asserting one cause of action: Quiet title to real property. Within that cause of action, plaintiff alleges in one paragraph that he is owed $69,722. Attached to the complaint is a mechanic’s lien dated June 28, 2019, recorded by plaintiff; plaintiff claims he is owed $69,722 for work performed on the property. But, the complaint does not request monetary damages; rather, the prayer for relief solely requests orders and a determination that he is the rightful holder of title to the property. On April 28, 2020, plaintiff requested and obtained defendant’s default. Notably, the request for entry of default form does not set forth any sums due in the section titled “Judgment to be Entered.” Following a default prove-up hearing on September 15, 2020, the trial court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant in the amount of $70,157. On September 21, 2021, defendant filed a motion to vacate the judgment. He argued that the default judgment was void because the complaint only sought to quiet title and did not include a request for monetary damages. After entertaining oral