In Atlas v. Davidyan (August 29, 2025) case no. BC335661, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division Eight, upheld a default judgment of over $1,100,000.00. The court upheld this judgment, and related orders of the Hon. Holly J. Fujie of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, from a challenge by the defendant, who was self-represented in the Superior Court. Though an answer was filed and the case ostensibly litigated by the defense, a terminating sanction was granted in favor of plaintiff, thus striking the answer to the complaint, after the defendant failed to fully respond to discovery following many orders that he do so.
The defense argued what was called a "doomsday" sanction was an "abuse of discretion." This is because even though the responses were admittedly deficient, that there was in fact some sort of response to the discovery provided. Writing for the Court, Justice Rubin dispatched this argument by noting the trial court took an "incremental and non-punitive" approach to discovery sanctions:
The trial court imposed terminating sanctions only after hearing eight previous motions for discovery non-compliance, and only after taking a patient and cautious approach to the discovery dispute. After plaintiff’s first motion to compel, the court gave defendant more time to respond. When defendant still did not provide complete or adequate written discovery responses, the court imposed moderate monetary sanctions and set new response deadlines in four more discovery hearings between December 2021 and January 2023. When these orders to compel and monetary sanctions proved insufficient to induce compliance, the court imposed issue sanctions. When even this severe penalty did not result in discovery compliance, the court imposed terminating sanctions. The court took exactly the incremental and non-punitive approach contemplated by the discovery statutes. (Id., p. 13.)
Of note is the argument by the defense there was no proper "notice" of the damages to be awarded because no Statement of Damages was filed and served per the procedure in Code of Civil Procedure section 425.11. However, the appellate court found the complaint itself gave sufficient notice: of the amount of damages the defendant might have to pay:
But his argument fails for the simple
reason that plaintiff’s complaint states that she is seeking general damages [for] mental injuries and economic loss”; she sought “general and special damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but no less than $1,000,000,” as well as attorney fees pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5, subdivision (a). Thus, there was no need for a section 425.11 statement and defendant was properly “apprised of [his] exposure” before the default was taken. (Id., p. 14.)
