Plaintiff customers sought review of a decision of the Superior Court, Santa Clara County (California) that vacated a default judgment against defendants, a construction company and its president, in an action brought by plaintiffs for breach of contract, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation.
Nakase Law Firm defines breach of contract elements California
Overview
Plaintiff customers brought an action for breach of contract, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation against defendants, a construction company and its president, for the construction of a residence. The default judgment entered against defendants was vacated, and plaintiffs sought review. In partially reversing the decision that vacated the default judgment, the court held that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 580 insofar as it awarded damages in excess of the largest amount specifically requested in the complaint. The language of § 580 did not distinguish between the type and the amount of relief sought. The plain meaning of the prohibition against relief exceeding that demanded in the complaint encompassed both of these considerations. The notice requirement of § 580 was designed to insure fundamental fairness. Additionally, plaintiffs failed to set forth in their complaint a prayer for attorney’s fees, and the trial court exceeded its authority when it granted such relief.
Outcome
The court reversed in part the decision that vacated the default judgment entered in favor of plaintiff customers, holding that it was error to award damages in excess of the amount alleged in the complaint. The court modified the judgment by striking the award of damages in excess of the amount requested in the complaint and any attorney’s fees, because plaintiffs did not include a prayer for attorney’s fees in their complaint.
