Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. CGC-02-411140
Jones, P.J.
Nicholas J. Sanguinetti appeals from an adverse judgment in a civil action. He contends the trial court erred when it declined to award him damages. We disagree and affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In August 2002, appellant filed a complaint against his sister, respondent Shirley Mendoza, and others. As amended and as is relevant, he alleged Mendoza had defrauded him by misappropriating the amounts in a trust that contained the assets of their deceased father’s estate.
The court, on its own motion, will incorporate by reference the record of appellant’s prior appeal. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.147(b).)
The other defendants successfully demurred to the complaint and were dismissed. Appellant appealed that ruling and we affirmed in an unpublished opinion. Mendoza apparently failed to answer the complaint, and appellant entered her default.
We say apparently because appellant has not provided a copy of Mendoza’s default.
A prove-up hearing was conducted before a judge on March 15, 2007. After hearing the evidence presented, the judge ruled appellant was not entitled to any damages and entered a judgment to that effect. This appeal followed.
II. DISCUSSION
Appellant contends the trial court erred when it declined to enter a judgment in his favor.
A defendant who fails to answer a complaint may have her default entered. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 585, subd. (b).) However, a plaintiff who obtains a defendant’s default is not automatically entitled to a judgment in his favor. A plaintiff must prove-up his claim by providing the court with evidence that is sufficient to support the conclusion that he suffered damages. (See Taliaferro v. Hoogs (1963) 219 Cal.App.2d 559, 560.) Absent such evidence, the court may refuse to grant a default judgment for any amount, notwithstanding the defendant’s default. (Ibid.)
That is precisely what occurred here. Appellant sued Mendoza and apparently obtained her default. However, at the prove-up hearing, appellant failed to prove that he suffered any identifiable damages. Appellant simply told the court that his father was wealthy and that he had significant assets. Absent evidence that appellant suffered damages in some identifiable amount, the court properly could conclude that appellant was not entitled to a judgment in his favor. (Taliaferro v. Hoogs, supra, 219 Cal.App.2d at p. 560 .)
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Simons, J. Stevens, J.
Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.