Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
20 California opinions name it 1 courts 1987–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Greenup v. Rodmangreen2 sentences2025(Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 826 .) “ ‘The notice requirement of section 580 was designed to insure fundamental fairness. 2025(Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 826 .) “ ‘The notice requirement of section 580 was designed to insure fundamental fairness. | 3 | 11 |
Becker v. S.P v. Construction Co.green2 sentences2015In Becker , the earlier of two California Supreme Court cases considering the scope and application of section 580, the court considered whether a prayer for relief asking for damages “in excess of $20,000 ... or according to proof,” sufficiently met section 580’s notice requirements to support a default judgment of slightly more than $26,000. ( Becker, supra, 27 Cal.3d at pp. 491-492.) Noting that section 580’s requirements were “designed to insure fundamental fairness” that would be “undermined if the door were opened to speculation” the court held “a prayer for damages according to proof pa 2011Construction Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 489 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 825 , 612 P.2d 915 ], the court explained: “[Defaulting defendants should not be subject to damages in excess of an amount specifically set out in the complaint. . . . [¶] The notice requirement of section 580 was designed to insure fundamental fairness. | 2 | 8 |
Levine v. Smithgreen2 sentences2018Several cases have held that a statement of damages does not satisfy section 580 if the case does not involve personal injury or wrongful death. ( Electronic Funds, supra, 134 Cal.App.4th at p. 1176 , 36 Cal.Rptr.3d 663 ; Levine v. Smith (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1131 , 1136, 52 Cal.Rptr.3d 197 ; Rodriguez, supra, 236 Cal.App.4th at p. 755 , 187 Cal.Rptr.3d 227 ; *1020 Dhawan, supra, 241 Cal.App.4th at pp. 969-970, 194 Cal.Rptr.3d 515 .) Stein held that section 580's formal notice requirement could not be satisfied even by the defaulting defendant's "active participation in discovery" and attenda 2018Several cases have held that a statement of damages does not satisfy section 580 if the case does not involve personal injury or wrongful death. ( Electronic Funds, supra, 134 Cal.App.4th at p. 1176 , 36 Cal.Rptr.3d 663 ; Levine v. Smith (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1131 , 1136, 52 Cal.Rptr.3d 197 ; Rodriguez, supra, 236 Cal.App.4th at p. 755 , 187 Cal.Rptr.3d 227 ; *1020 Dhawan, supra, 241 Cal.App.4th at pp. 969-970, 194 Cal.Rptr.3d 515 .) Stein held that section 580's formal notice requirement could not be satisfied even by the defaulting defendant's "active participation in discovery" and attenda | 2 | 4 |
Dhawan v. Biringgreen2 sentences2018(Electronic Funds, supra, 134 Cal.App.4th at p. 1176 ; Levine v. Smith (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1136 ; Rodriguez, supra, 236 Cal.App.4th at p. 755 ; Dhawan, supra, 241 Cal.App.4th at pp. 969−970.) Stein held that section 580's formal notice requirement could not be satisfied even by the defaulting defendant's "active participation in discovery" and attendance at the default prove-up hearing. ( Stein, supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at pp. 326−327.) This emphasis on formal notice stems from the policy goals at stake. 2018Several cases have held that a statement of damages does not satisfy section 580 if the case does not involve personal injury or wrongful death. ( Electronic Funds, supra, 134 Cal.App.4th at p. 1176 , 36 Cal.Rptr.3d 663 ; Levine v. Smith (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1131 , 1136, 52 Cal.Rptr.3d 197 ; Rodriguez, supra, 236 Cal.App.4th at p. 755 , 187 Cal.Rptr.3d 227 ; *1020 Dhawan, supra, 241 Cal.App.4th at pp. 969-970, 194 Cal.Rptr.3d 515 .) Stein held that section 580's formal notice requirement could not be satisfied even by the defaulting defendant's "active participation in discovery" and attenda | 1 | 3 |
Electronic Funds Solutions v. Murphygreen2 sentences2018Several cases have held that a statement of damages does not satisfy section 580 if the case does not involve personal injury or wrongful death. ( Electronic Funds, supra, 134 Cal.App.4th at p. 1176 , 36 Cal.Rptr.3d 663 ; Levine v. Smith (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1131 , 1136, 52 Cal.Rptr.3d 197 ; Rodriguez, supra, 236 Cal.App.4th at p. 755 , 187 Cal.Rptr.3d 227 ; *1020 Dhawan, supra, 241 Cal.App.4th at pp. 969-970, 194 Cal.Rptr.3d 515 .) Stein held that section 580's formal notice requirement could not be satisfied even by the defaulting defendant's "active participation in discovery" and attenda 2018Several cases have held that a statement of damages does not satisfy section 580 if the case does not involve personal injury or wrongful death. ( Electronic Funds, supra, 134 Cal.App.4th at p. 1176 , 36 Cal.Rptr.3d 663 ; Levine v. Smith (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1131 , 1136, 52 Cal.Rptr.3d 197 ; Rodriguez, supra, 236 Cal.App.4th at p. 755 , 187 Cal.Rptr.3d 227 ; *1020 Dhawan, supra, 241 Cal.App.4th at pp. 969-970, 194 Cal.Rptr.3d 515 .) Stein held that section 580's formal notice requirement could not be satisfied even by the defaulting defendant's "active participation in discovery" and attenda | 1 | 3 |
Airs Aromatics, LLC v. CBL Data Recovery Techs., Inc.green1 sentence2025Surely, this would be undermined if the door were opened to speculation, no matter how reasonable it might appear in a particular case, that a prayer for damages according to proof provided adequate notice of a defaulting defendant’s potential liability.’ ” (Stein, supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at p. 325 .) “If a default judgment awarded against a defendant exceeds the relief demanded in the complaint [citation], or is a different form of relief than that demanded in the complaint [citation], the defendant is ‘effectively denied a fair hearing … [citations].’ Thus, a default judgment in an amount gre | 1 | 1 |
Ins. Co. of Pa. v. Am. Safety Indem. Co.green1 sentence2024Such notice enables a defendant to exercise his right to choose—at any point before trial, even after discovery has begun—between (1) giving up his right to defend in 6 exchange for the certainty that he cannot be held liable for more than a known amount, and (2) exercising his right to defend at the cost of exposing himself to greater liability.” (Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 826, 829 .) To this end, “a default judgment entered in violation of section 580 is void and must be vacated.” (Dhawan v. Biring (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 963, 975 (Dhawan); see also Insurance Co. of State of Pen | 1 | 1 |
Eustice v. Eusticegreen1 sentence2020(Eustice, 242 Cal.App.4th at p. 1304 [“A petitioner’s list of assets and debts in a property declaration, preliminary declaration, and disclosure declaration fulfill the . . . notice function in a marital dissolution . . . provided the declarations are served on the respondent before entry of default”].) With respect to Debra’s December 2018 preliminary declaration, we cannot determine if it satisfies the requirements of section 580 because the declaration is not part of the record on appeal. | 1 | 1 |
Sole Energy Co. v. Hodgesgreen2 sentences2015(See, e.g., Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 286 [ 133 Cal.Rptr.3d 774 ] [“a statement of damages cannot be relied upon to establish a plaintiff’s monetary damages, except in cases of personal injury or wrongful death”]; Levine v. Smith (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1136 [ 52 Cal.Rptr.3d 197 ] [in a case not involving personal injury or wrongful death, a statement of damages cannot be used to satisfy the notice requirements of § 580]; Sole Energy Co. v. Hodges (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 199, 206, fn. 4 [ 26 Cal.Rptr.3d 823 ] (Sole Energy) [“[statements of damages are used 2015(See, e.g., Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 286 [ 133 Cal.Rptr.3d 774 ] [“a statement of damages cannot be relied upon to establish a plaintiff’s monetary damages, except in cases of personal injury or wrongful death”]; Levine v. Smith (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1136 [ 52 Cal.Rptr.3d 197 ] [in a case not involving personal injury or wrongful death, a statement of damages cannot be used to satisfy the notice requirements of § 580]; Sole Energy Co. v. Hodges (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 199, 206, fn. 4 [ 26 Cal.Rptr.3d 823 ] (Sole Energy) [“[statements of damages are used | 1 | 1 |
Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc.green2 sentences2015(See, e.g., Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 286 [ 133 Cal.Rptr.3d 774 ] [“a statement of damages cannot be relied upon to establish a plaintiff’s monetary damages, except in cases of personal injury or wrongful death”]; Levine v. Smith (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1136 [ 52 Cal.Rptr.3d 197 ] [in a case not involving personal injury or wrongful death, a statement of damages cannot be used to satisfy the notice requirements of § 580]; Sole Energy Co. v. Hodges (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 199, 206, fn. 4 [ 26 Cal.Rptr.3d 823 ] (Sole Energy) [“[statements of damages are used 2015(See, e.g., Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 286 [ 133 Cal.Rptr.3d 774 ] [“a statement of damages cannot be relied upon to establish a plaintiff’s monetary damages, except in cases of personal injury or wrongful death”]; Levine v. Smith (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1136 [ 52 Cal.Rptr.3d 197 ] [in a case not involving personal injury or wrongful death, a statement of damages cannot be used to satisfy the notice requirements of § 580]; Sole Energy Co. v. Hodges (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 199, 206, fn. 4 [ 26 Cal.Rptr.3d 823 ] (Sole Energy) [“[statements of damages are used | 1 | 1 |
Paul F. Roemer, Jr. And Marcia E. Roemer v. Commissioner of Internal Revenuegreen1 sentence2014(See Roemer v. C.I.R. 13 (9th Cir. 1983) 716 F.2d 693, 699, fn. 4 [“Although a corporation may sue for certain types of defamation, a corporation by its very nature cannot suffer a personal injury”].) Electronic Funds, supra, 134 Cal.App.4th 1161 , is directly on point. | 1 | 1 |
Burtnett v. Kinggreen2 sentences2009(Becker v. S.P.V. *1209 Construction Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 489, 494-495 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 825 , 612 P.2d 915 ]; Burtnett v. King (1949) 33 Cal.2d 805, 807 [ 205 P.2d 657 ].) Appellant contends that plaintiffs failed to specify the amount of damages sought in their prayer for relief, which sought a “judgment for damages sustained by plaintiffs according to proof . . . .” Addressing the type of notice which a complaint must provide under section 580 before a default judgment may be entered, our Supreme Court has explained: “The notice requirement of section 580 was designed to insure fundamental fa 2009(Becker v. S.P.V. *1209 Construction Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 489, 494-495 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 825 , 612 P.2d 915 ]; Burtnett v. King (1949) 33 Cal.2d 805, 807 [ 205 P.2d 657 ].) Appellant contends that plaintiffs failed to specify the amount of damages sought in their prayer for relief, which sought a “judgment for damages sustained by plaintiffs according to proof . . . .” Addressing the type of notice which a complaint must provide under section 580 before a default judgment may be entered, our Supreme Court has explained: “The notice requirement of section 580 was designed to insure fundamental fa | 1 | 1 |
Petty v. Manpower, Inc.green2 sentences1991Surely this would be undermined if the door were opened to speculation, no matter how reasonable it might appear in a particular case that a prayer for damages according to proof provided adequate notice of a defaulting defendant’s potential liability.” (Ibid, [internal quotation marks deleted].) Section 580 constitutes a statutory expression of the mandates of due process, which require “formal notice of potential liability.” ( 42 Cal.3d at p. 826 ; accord, Petty v. Manpower, Inc. (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 794, 798 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 622 ] [California has codified constitutional protection of notice] 1991Surely this would be undermined if the door were opened to speculation, no matter how reasonable it might appear in a particular case that a prayer for damages according to proof provided adequate notice of a defaulting defendant’s potential liability.” (Ibid, [internal quotation marks deleted].) Section 580 constitutes a statutory expression of the mandates of due process, which require “formal notice of potential liability.” ( 42 Cal.3d at p. 826 ; accord, Petty v. Manpower, Inc. (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 794, 798 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 622 ] [California has codified constitutional protection of notice] | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stein v. York
green
2 sentences2018(Electronic Funds, supra, 134 Cal.App.4th at p. 1176 ; Levine v. Smith (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1136 ; Rodriguez, supra, 236 Cal.App.4th at p. 755 ; Dhawan, supra, 241 Cal.App.4th at pp. 969−970.) Stein held that section 580's formal notice requirement could not be satisfied even by the defaulting defendant's "active participation in discovery" and attendance at the default prove-up hearing. ( Stein, supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at pp. 326−327.) This emphasis on formal notice stems from the policy goals at stake. 2018Several cases have held that a statement of damages does not satisfy section 580 if the case does not involve personal injury or wrongful death. ( Electronic Funds, supra, 134 Cal.App.4th at p. 1176 , 36 Cal.Rptr.3d 663 ; Levine v. Smith (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1131 , 1136, 52 Cal.Rptr.3d 197 ; Rodriguez, supra, 236 Cal.App.4th at p. 755 , 187 Cal.Rptr.3d 227 ; *1020 Dhawan, supra, 241 Cal.App.4th at pp. 969-970, 194 Cal.Rptr.3d 515 .) Stein held that section 580's formal notice requirement could not be satisfied even by the defaulting defendant's "active participation in discovery" and attenda | 4 | 2018–2025 |
Rodriguez v. Nam Min Cho
green
2 sentences2018Several cases have held that a statement of damages does not satisfy section 580 if the case does not involve personal injury or wrongful death. ( Electronic Funds, supra, 134 Cal.App.4th at p. 1176 , 36 Cal.Rptr.3d 663 ; Levine v. Smith (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1131 , 1136, 52 Cal.Rptr.3d 197 ; Rodriguez, supra, 236 Cal.App.4th at p. 755 , 187 Cal.Rptr.3d 227 ; *1020 Dhawan, supra, 241 Cal.App.4th at pp. 969-970, 194 Cal.Rptr.3d 515 .) Stein held that section 580's formal notice requirement could not be satisfied even by the defaulting defendant's "active participation in discovery" and attenda 2018Several cases have held that a statement of damages does not satisfy section 580 if the case does not involve personal injury or wrongful death. ( Electronic Funds, supra, 134 Cal.App.4th at p. 1176 , 36 Cal.Rptr.3d 663 ; Levine v. Smith (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1131 , 1136, 52 Cal.Rptr.3d 197 ; Rodriguez, supra, 236 Cal.App.4th at p. 755 , 187 Cal.Rptr.3d 227 ; *1020 Dhawan, supra, 241 Cal.App.4th at pp. 969-970, 194 Cal.Rptr.3d 515 .) Stein held that section 580's formal notice requirement could not be satisfied even by the defaulting defendant's "active participation in discovery" and attenda | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Rochin v. Pat Johnson Manufacturing Co.
green
1 sentence2019(Rochin v. Pat Johnson Manufacturing Co. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1239 .) “The statutes dealing with entry of default judgment ‘ensure that a defendant who declines to contest an action does not thereby subject himself to open- ended liability. . . .’ [Citation.] ‘The notice requirement of section 580 was designed to insure fundamental fairness. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Lippel v. San Francisco
green
2 sentences2018However, a defendant is not in a position to make such a decision if he or she has not been given full notice." ( Lippel, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 1166 , 276 Cal.Rptr. 290 , 801 P.2d 1041 .) It is because section 580 was "designed to insure fundamental fairness" that it must be strictly construed. ( Becker, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 494 , 165 Cal.Rptr. 825 , 612 P.2d 915 .) The statute's policy objective would "[s]urely ... be undermined if the door were opened to speculation, no matter how reasonable it might appear in a particular case, that a prayer for damages according to proof provided adequa 2018However, a defendant is not in a position to make such a decision if he or she has not been given full notice." ( Lippel, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 1166 , 276 Cal.Rptr. 290 , 801 P.2d 1041 .) It is because section 580 was "designed to insure fundamental fairness" that it must be strictly construed. ( Becker, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 494 , 165 Cal.Rptr. 825 , 612 P.2d 915 .) The statute's policy objective would "[s]urely ... be undermined if the door were opened to speculation, no matter how reasonable it might appear in a particular case, that a prayer for damages according to proof provided adequa | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Ely v. Gray
green
1 sentence2014(Ely, supra, 224 Cal.App.3d at p. 1259 .) The appellate court observed that the notice requirement in Code of Civil Procedure section 580, subdivision (a), places plaintiffs seeking an accounting “in a bind,” as the presence of allegations in a complaint specifying an amount due ordinarily undermines a prayer for an accounting. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Matera v. McLeod
green
2 sentences2014(Italics added.) Directing the parties to Matera, supra, 145 Cal.App.4th 44 , our request for supplemental letter briefs asked the parties to address the following question, “Was the statement of damages insufficient to satisfy . . . section 580’s notice requirements, rendering void the judgment awarding compensatory and punitive damages on [Schneider’s] libel cause of action, because it was not served a reasonable time before Ellis’s answer was stricken as a terminating sanction?” Ellis’s supplemental brief argues Matera compels the conclusion the judgment is void. 2014(Italics added.) Directing the parties to Matera, supra, 145 Cal.App.4th 44 , our request for supplemental letter briefs asked the parties to address the following question, “Was the statement of damages insufficient to satisfy . . . section 580’s notice requirements, rendering void the judgment awarding compensatory and punitive damages on [Schneider’s] libel cause of action, because it was not served a reasonable time before Ellis’s answer was stricken as a terminating sanction?” Ellis’s supplemental brief argues Matera compels the conclusion the judgment is void. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Janssen v. Luu
green
1 sentence2010The court concluded “the notice requirement of section 580 exists to insure fundamental fairness, and it should not be undermined by speculation about what a defendant may or may not know about the municipal court’s jurisdictional limits.” (Janssen v. Luu, supra, 57 Cal.App.4th at p. 279 .) The court further explained, “ ‘Even if defendants may be deemed to have constructive notice of the jurisdictional limit, due process requires that they know exactly what risk they assume by not responding to the pleading. . . . [Section 580] and due process require[] that defendants be told exactly what th | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.