TENTATIVE RULING 

Plaintiff Benjamin Avi Harris’ Application for Default Judgment is CONTINUED to a future date to allow Plaintiff to submit supplemental evidence as set forth below. 

REASONING 

Plaintiff Benjamin Avi Harris’ Application for Default Judgment again contains several deficiencies which must be remedied before the Court can enter judgment in Plaintiff’s favor.

First, Plaintiff must omit filing and motion costs and fees for electronic filing or service incurred due to counsel error, as such costs are not reasonably necessary costs. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (c)(2).) Plaintiff must either describe the nature of “advance[d] witness fees” or omit this request.

Again, it is axiomatic that “[p]laintiffs in a default judgment proceeding must prove they are entitled to the damages claimed.” (Kim v. Westmore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 288.) While a default generally admits the allegations of the complaint, this does not relieve a plaintiff of a duty to establish causation and damages. (See Ostling v. Loring (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1731, 1745 [sufficiency of evidence supporting default is not reviewed only “as to matters for which no proof is required by virtue of the admission by default of the allegations of the complaint ... as to damages which, despite default, require proof the general rule does not apply”].)  

Plaintiff again fails to prove he is entitled to emotional distress damages. While Plaintiff describes that he suffers from anxiety as a result of Defendant Arash Jaromi’s call to law enforcement, he states that he approached law enforcement, and it is also not unreasonable for an individual to suspect a burglary when an unknown individual, here, a process server, approaches a residence. Further, law enforcement does not generally act at the instruction of a private individual, such that holding Defendant accountable for law enforcement’s conduct appears improper when Defendant simply placed a call to law enforcement, which he was legally entitled to do.

Even assuming Plaintiff had sufficiently established claims for false imprisonment and private nuisance based on the call to law enforcement, Plaintiff fails to show that he suffered $80,000 in emotional distress damages from this conduct. The Court lacks a basis to conclude that fear of being in one’s home, when Plaintiff provides no evidence that he paid to stay in another location, or stress resulting in asking for deadline extensions at work, when Plaintiff provides no evidence that he suffered any negative employment consequences, can support such a large claim for damages. Evidence of weekly appointments with a therapist does not establish that Plaintiff visited the therapist solely due to Defendant’s conduct and the purported fear he had of being in his home, particularly when there is no evidence that Plaintiff vacated the property due to this fear. 

Plaintiff shall amend his default judgment package to cure these deficiencies on or before June 6, 2024 at 8:30.