Yu v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. CA4/3
Generally, as a fundamental rule, when a civil litigant sues for monetary damages, “the amount demanded must be stated.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.10, subd. (a)(2).) A demand for “damages according to proof” is insufficient; such a demand does not provide adequate notice to sustain a default judgment. (§ 585, subds. (a) & (b).)
Here, Bann-Shiang Liza Yu hired Automatic Teller Modules, Inc. (ATMI), a general contractor, to design and build a hotel. After the hotel opened, Yu filed a complaint against ATMI for construction defects, praying for “not less than $10 million dollars” in damages. ATMI filed a cross-complaint against its subcontractors, including Fitch Construction and Fitch Plastering (collectively the Fitch Entities). ATMI’s cross-complaint prayed for “compensatory damages according to proof.”
Comments on Yu v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. CA4/3