Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 18STCV07806, Date: 2023-11-22 Tentative Ruling
All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court. This does not excuse a moving party's need to do one of the following: appear; submit; or take a matter off calendar by canceling the motion in the case reservation system before issuance of the tentative ruling if the matter moving party does not intend to proceed.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 18STCV07806 Hearing Date: January 11, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the documents submitted in support of default judgments, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On December 10, 2018, Plaintiff Ebrahim Ahdoot (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Mossa Heikali (“Heikali”), F&M Radiology Medical Center (“F&M”), Behram Tabibian (“Tabibian”), and Does 1-100 for negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and relief.
On May 9, 2019, the clerk entered F&M’s default. On June 6, 2019, the clerk entered Heikali’s and Tabibian’s defaults.
On July 24, 2019, the Court dismissed the Doe defendants without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On September 10, 2020, the Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice. On November 2, 2021, the Court vacated the dismissal.
On August 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Heikali, F&M, Tabibian, and Does 1-100 for medical malpractice, battery, fraud and deceit, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
On January 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed (1) a Statement of Damages sought against Heikali with a proof of service showing substituted service on September 7, 2022, (2) a Statement of Damages sought against F&M with a proof of service showing personal service on September 7, 2022, and (3) a Statement of Damages sought against Babibian with a proof of service showing substituted service on September 7, 2022.
On February 1, 2023, the clerk entered Heikali’s and Tabibian’s defaults. On April 12, 2023, the clerk entered F&M’s default.
On May 8, 2023, June 13, 2023, July 25, 2023, and August 28, 2023, the Court dismissed the Doe defendants without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On June 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed new Statements of Damages sought against Heikali and F&M with modified damage amounts. The attached proofs of service showed service on June 5, 2023.
On October 30, 2023, Plaintiff submitted an application for default judgment against Heikali.
On October 31, 2023, November 22, 2023, and November 29, 2023, Plaintiff submitted applications for default judgment against F&M.
On October 31, 2023, Plaintiff submitted an application for default judgment against Tabibian.
On November 22, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissals of Heikali, F&M, and Tabibian.
On December 11, 2023, the Court posted a tentative ruling on the Court’s website addressing Plaintiff’s applications for default judgment (largely along the lines set forth below). However, the minute order from December 11, 2023 does not reflect the contents of the tentative ruling. The minute order states that the Court scheduled a non-appearance case review on the default judgment application for January 11, 2024. Therefore, it appears that the Court has not adopted the December 11, 2023 tentative ruling as the Court’s order. Therefore, the Court will reissue the tentative ruling with modifications that bring it up to date and reflect the Court’s further work on the case.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Based on Plaintiff’s application for Court judgment (CIV-100) against Heikali dated January 8, 2024, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter default judgment against Heikali and award Plaintiff $2,683,985.79, consisting of $1,000,000 as the “demand of complaint,” $283,985.79 in special damages, and $1,400,000.00 in general damages.
Based on Plaintiff’s application for Court judgment (CIV-100) against F&M dated January 8, 2024, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter default judgment against F&M and award Plaintiff $2,685,955.79, consisting of $1,000,000 as the “demand of complaint,” $283,985.79 in special damages, $1,400,000.00 in general damages, and $1,970.00 in costs.
Based on Plaintiff’s application for Court judgment (CIV-100) against Tabibian dated October 31, 2023, Plaintiff asks the Court to enter default judgment against Tabibian and award Plaintiff $1,683,985.79, consisting of $1,000,000 in punitive damages, $283,985.79 in special damages, and $400,000.00 in general damages.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Default judgment
“[With exceptions that do not apply here,] [a] party seeking a default judgment on declarations must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Application to Enter Default) (form CIV-100) . . . The following must be included in the documents filed with the clerk:
“(1) Except in unlawful detainer cases, a brief summary of the case identifying the parties and the nature of plaintiff's claim;
“(2) Declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested;
“(3) Interest computations as necessary;
“(4) A memorandum of costs and disbursements;
“(5) A declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant against whom judgment is sought;
“(6) A proposed form of judgment;
“(7) A dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under Code of Civil Procedure section 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment;
“(8) Exhibits as necessary; and
“(9) A request for attorney fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties.”
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a).)
B. Damages
On a request for default judgment, “[w]here a cause of action is stated in the complaint, plaintiff merely needs to introduce evidence establishing a prima facie case for damages.” (L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2023) ¶ 5:213.1, p. 5-56 (Cal. Practice Guide), citing Johnson v. Stanhiser (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 357, 361 [trial court erred in applying preponderance of the evidence standard].)
The relief granted to a plaintiff upon entry of a defendant's default cannot exceed the amount demanded in the complaint or, for personal injury cases where damages may not be stated in the complaint, the amount listed in the statement of damages. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 580, subd. (a), 585, subd. (b).) “The notice requirement of section 580 was designed to insure fundamental fairness.” (Becker v. S.P.V. Construction Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 489, 494 (Becker).) The statute insures that “defendants in cases which involve a default judgment have adequate notice of the judgments that may be taken against them. [Citation.] ‘If a judgment other than that which is demanded is taken against him, [the defendant] has been deprived of his day in court—a right to a hearing on the matter adjudicated.’ ’’ (Id. at p. 493.) A trial court exceeds its jurisdiction if it awards damages in excess of the amount specified in the complaint or statement of damages. (Id. at p. 494; see Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 5:258, p. 5-70.)
DISCUSSION
A. Defendant Mossa Heikali
On September 7, 2022, Plaintiff served a statement of damages on Heikali stating that Plaintiff was seeking $400,000 in general damages ($250,000 for pain and suffering and $150,000 for emotional distress), $485,000 in special damages ($250,000 for past medical expenses, $150,000 for future medical expenses, and $85,000 for lost earnings), and $1,000,000 in punitive damages. The total amount sought was $1,885,000.
On February 1, 2023, the clerk entered Heikali’s default.
On June 5, 2023, Plaintiff served another statement of damages on Heikali. This statement of damages stated that Plaintiff was seeking $1,400,000 in general damages ($950,000 for pain and suffering and $450,000 for emotional distress), $283,985.79 in special damages (for past medical expenses), and $1 million in punitive damages. The total amount sought was $2,683,985.79 – the amount Plaintiff now seeks as a default judgment.
“In personal injury and wrongful death actions, the complaint must not state the amount of damages sought [citations]. Therefore, before a default may be entered, plaintiff must serve defendant with a statement of ‘the nature and amount of damages being sought.’ ” (Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 5:82, p. 5-27, citing Code Civ. Proc., § 425.11.) “Proof of service of a [statement of damages under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.11] must accompany any request for entry of default to assure that defendants received actual notice of their potential liability.” (Ibid.)
Plaintiff attempted to increase the amount of damages being sought against Heikali after the clerk entered his default, defeating the purpose of the statement of damages. Plaintiff’s service of a new statement of damages “opened” the default, requiring that the Court vacate the default to give Heikali an opportunity to decide whether to contest the case based on his increased potential liability.
The Court vacates the default entered on February 1, 2023 against Heikali.
As the Court mentioned above, the Court posted a tentative ruling on December 11, 2023 that contained largely the same discussion of Plaintiff’s application for default judgment against Heikali and the decision to vacate the February 1, 2023 default. Although the Court did not adopt the contents of the December 11, 2023 tentative ruling in the Court’s December 11, 2023 minute order, Plaintiff’s counsel viewed the tentative ruling and reasonably assumed the Court had adopted the tentative ruling as the Court’s order. On December 28, 2023, Plaintiff submitted a new request for entry of Heikali’s default. The clerk denied the request because the previous default was still in effect due to the Court’s inadvertent failure to adopt the December 11, 2023 tentative ruling in a court order. Because the Court has now vacated the default, Heikali is no longer in default.
If Plaintiff obtains a new default and submits another request for default judgment against Heikali, Plaintiff should submit a complete new default judgment packet. Plaintiff should not list any damages amounts in the “demand of complaint” section of the CIV-100 form because the complaint did not demand a specific amount of damages. It appears that the amount listed as “demand of complaint” is a request for punitive damages. Plaintiff must present evidence of Heikali’s financial condition, which is a prerequisite to an award of punitive damages on which Plaintiff bears the burden of proof. (See Del Junco v. Hufnagel (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 789, 791 [reversing default judgment's punitive damage award because record contained no proof of defendant's financial condition].)
Plaintiff states that he believes Heikali has the ability to pay punitive damages because, according to Dun & Bradstreet, he is the key principal and CEO of F&M Radiology Medical Center, which is a large corporation with multiple fully functioning medical offices in California, including, Woodland Hills, Westwood, Upland, San Bernardino, Encino, Buena Park. In addition, Plaintiff states he "was reassured by Defendant Tabibian, that the company was well insured." Without more, these statements are not evidence of Heikali's ability to pay a punitive damage award.
B. Defendant F&M Radiology Medical Center
On September 7, 2022 and February 27, 2023, Plaintiff served a statement of damages on F&M stating that Plaintiff was seeking $400,000 in general damages ($250,000 for pain and suffering and $150,000 for emotional distress), $555,000 in special damages ($320,000 for past medical expenses, $150,000 for future medical expenses, and $85,000 for lost earnings), and $1,000,000 in punitive damages. The total amount sought was $1,955,000.
On April 12, 2023, the clerk entered F&M’s default.
On June 5, 2023, Plaintiff served another statement of damages on F&M. This statement of damages stated that Plaintiff was seeking $1,400,000 in general damages ($950,000 for pain and suffering and $450,000 for emotional distress), $283,985.79 in special damages (for past medical expenses), and $1 million in punitive damages. The total amount sought was $2,683,985.79 – the amount Plaintiff now seeks as a default judgment (plus costs of $1,970).
“In personal injury and wrongful death actions, the complaint must not state the amount of damages sought [citations]. Therefore, before a default may be entered, plaintiff must serve defendant with a statement of ‘the nature and amount of damages being sought.’ ” (Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 5:82, p. 5-27, citing Code Civ. Proc., § 425.11.) “Proof of service of a [statement of damages under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.11] must accompany any request for entry of default to assure that defendants received actual notice of their potential liability.” (Ibid.)
Plaintiff attempted to increase the amount of damages being sought against F&M after the clerk entered its default, defeating the purpose of the statement of damages. Plaintiff’s service of a new statement of damages “opened” the default, requiring that the Court vacate the default to give F&M an opportunity to decide whether to contest the case based on its increased potential liability.
The Court vacates the default entered on April 12, 2023 against F&M.
As already discussed, the Court posted a tentative ruling on December 11, 2023 that contained largely the same discussion of Plaintiff’s application for default judgment against F&M and the decision to vacate the April 12, 2023 default. Although the Court did not adopt the contents of the December 11, 2023 tentative ruling in the Court’s December 11, 2023 minute order, Plaintiff’s counsel viewed the tentative ruling and reasonably assumed the Court had adopted the tentative ruling as the Court’s order. On December 28, 2023, Plaintiff submitted a new request for entry of F&M’s default. The clerk denied the request because the previous default was still in effect due to the Court’s inadvertent failure to adopt the December 11, 2023 tentative ruling in a court order. Because the Court has now vacated the default, F&M is no longer in default.
If Plaintiff obtains a new default and submits another request for default judgment against F&M, Plaintiff should submit a complete new default judgment packet. Plaintiff should not list any damages amounts in the “demand of complaint” section of the CIV-100 form because the complaint did not demand a specific amount of damages. It appears that the amount listed as “demand of complaint” is a request for punitive damages. Plaintiff must present evidence of F&M’s financial condition, which is a prerequisite to an award of punitive damages on which Plaintiff bears the burden of proof. (See Del Junco v. Hufnagel (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 789, 791 [reversing default judgment's punitive damage award because record contained no proof of defendant's financial condition].)
Plaintiff states that F&M "has the ability to pay punitive damages because they are a large corporation and have multiple fully functioning medical offices in California, including, Woodland Hills, Westwood, Upland, San Bernardino, Encino, Buena Park. In addition, Plaintiff was reassured by defendant, that the company was well insured." Without more, these statements are not evidence of F&M’s ability to pay a punitive damage award.
C. Defendant Behram Tabibian
Plaintiff seeks $1,000,000 in punitive damages. Plaintiff must present evidence of Tabibian's financial condition, which is a prerequisite to an award of punitive damages on which Plaintiff bears the burden of proof. (See Del Junco v. Hufnagel (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 789, 791 [reversing default judgment's punitive damage award because record contained no proof of defendant's financial condition].)
If Plaintiff submits another request for default judgment against Tabibian, Plaintiff should submit a complete new default judgment packet. Plaintiff should not list any damages amounts in the “demand of complaint” section of the CIV-100 form because the complaint did not demand a specific amount of damages.
CONCLUSION
The Court VACATES the default entered on February 1, 2023 against Defendant Mossa Heikali and DENIES Plaintiff Ebrahim Ahdoot’s application for default judgment against Defendant Mossa Heikali filed on January 8, 2024.
The Court VACATES the default entered on April 12, 2023 against Defendant F&M Radiology Medical Center and DENIES Plaintiff Ebrahim Ahdoot’s application for default judgment against Defendant F&M Radiology Medical Center filed on January 8, 2024.
The Court DENIES Plaintiff Ebrahim Ahdoot’s application for default judgment against Defendant Behram Tabibian filed on October 31, 2023.
The Court sets an OSC re: entry of default against Defendants Mossa Heikali and F&M Radiology Medical Center on March 12, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. at the Spring Street Courthouse.
The Court sets an OSC re: entry of default judgment against Defendant Behram Tabibian on March 12, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. at the Spring Street Courthouse.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.