Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 22STCV06721, Date: 2022-08-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV06721    Hearing Date: August 8, 2022    Dept: 26

Plaintiff’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment submitted on 7/21/22 is GRANTED in the following amounts:

$50,000           Principal

$3,174.29        Interest Claimed

$1,890             Attorney’s fees

$579.97           Costs

$55,644.26      TOTAL

The Court has modified the amounts from the judgment that Plaintiff has proposed for the following reasons:

Attorney’s Fees

Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees is not calculated in accordance with LASC Rule 3.214.  Nor is Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees supported by a declaration explaining why a greater amount should be awarded, including an itemized statement of the services rendered or to be rendered.  Nothing in the record would support an enhanced award of attorney’s fees for this relatively simple and straightforward, uncontested matter.  Accordingly, the Court will award attorney’s fees calculated in accordance with LASC Rule 3.214

Punitive Damages

Civil Code § 3294 authorizes the recovery of punitive damages in non-contract cases where “the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice . . . .”  “Malice” is defined in Civil Code § 3294 to mean “conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.”  (Civil Code §3294, subd. (c)(1).)  Where malice is based on a defendant’s conscious disregard of a plaintiff’s rights, the conduct must be both despicable and willful; “despicable conduct refers to circumstances that are base, vile, or contemptible.”  (College Hospital v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 725.) 

Plaintiff has failed to plead and present clear and convincing evidence satisfying the requirements of Civil Code 3294.

Moreover, before the Court may award punitive damages, Plaintiff must present some evidence to allow evaluation of the effect of the punitive damages award on the defendant such that the punitive damages award is not excessive in light of defendant’s ability to pay.  (See Adams v. Murakami (1991) 54 Cal.3d 105, 114;  Lara v. Cadag (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1061, 1065 [meaningful evidence required and “evidence of earnings is not by itself sufficient.”];  Green v. Laibco, LLC (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 441, 452-54 [evidence of a defendant’s profit during the most recent twelve-month period, and evidence of defendant’s positive net worth, constituted the required meaningful evidence of financial condition, or of the profitability of the defendant's conduct]; Cummings Medical Corp. v. Occupational Medical Corp. (1992) 10 Cal. App. 4th 1291, 1300 [applying Adams, supra, to a default prove-up; some measure of the effect of a punitive damages award in terms of deterrence is required before punitive damages may be awarded in a default judgment]; Johnson v. Ford Motor Co. (2005) 35 Cal.4^th 1191, 1208 [calculating punitive damages in an individual tort case based on profits gained may produce an excessive award when there are multiple similar torts].) 

Here, Plaintiff fails to present any evidence to allow evaluation of the effect of the punitive damages award on the defendant.  If anything, the evidence of numerous tax liens suggests that Defendant is unable to pay punitive damages.  Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the punitive damages award is not excessive in light of defendant’s ability to pay, in conformity with the above authorities.

Court Clerk to give notice.