California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Johnson v. Stanhiser, 72 Cal.App.4th 357, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 82 (Cal. App. 1999):
After considering the evidence presented, the trial court erroneously applied a preponderance of the evidence standard in determining whether plaintiff was entitled to an award of damages. The correct standard of proof requires that the plaintiff merely establish a prima facie case. "Generally speaking, the party who makes default thereby confesses the material allegations of the complaint. [Citation.] It is also true that where a cause of action is stated in the complaint and evidence is introduced to establish a prima facie case the trial court may not disregard the same, but must hear the evidence offered by the plaintiff and must render judgment in his favor for such sum, not exceeding the amount stated in the complaint, or for such relief, not exceeding that demanded in the complaint, as appears from the evidence to be just. [Citations.]" (Taliaferro v. Davis (1963) 216 Cal.App.2d 398, 408-409, 31 Cal.Rptr. 164, original emphasis.) With the correct standard in mind, we look at the evidence to determine whether plaintiff established a prima facie case.
B. The Evidence.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.