Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 22STCV21351, Date: 2024-11-18 Tentative Ruling
All rulings shown here are TENTATIVE ONLY, and thus oral argument WILL be heard. All Counsel are still required to attend.
Case Number: 22STCV21351 Hearing Date: November 18, 2024 Dept: 45
Applicant: Plaintiff
Yenniry Alonzo aka Jenny Alonzo
Defaulting Party: Defendants
NYLA Productions LLC dba Nyla Media Group LLC and Louis Arriola
Default Taken: July
25, 2023 (against NYLA Productions LLC dba Nyla Media Group LLC) and May 3,
2023 (against Louis Arriola)
Request for Entry of Default Judgment
The court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s
request for entry of default judgment.
Discussion
Plaintiff Yenniry
Alonzo aka Jenny Alonzo requests for entry of default judgment against defendants
NYLA Productions LLC dba Nyla Media Group LLC and Louis Arriola in the total
amount of $4,786,960.69 which includes $1,642,500.00 in special damages,
$3,000,000.00 in general damages, $7,220.94 in costs, and $137,239.75 in
attorney’s fees. Plaintiff also seeks $5,000,000.00 in punitive damages. However,
Plaintiff’s application contains the following defects:
As an initial
matter, Plaintiff has not corrected the deficiency regarding punitive damages
which was noted by the Court on September 13, 2023. For instance, Plaintiff requests
$5,000,000.00 million in punitive damages but fails to provide evidence of the
Defendants’ net worth for punitive damages to be assessed. (Adams v.
Murakami (1991) 54 Cal.3d 105, 111-12.) “A reviewing
court cannot make a fully informed determination of whether an award of
punitive damages is excessive unless the record contains evidence of the
defendant's financial condition.” (Id. at 110.)
Plaintiff also
requests $3,000,000.00 million in general damages for emotional and mental
distress. Plaintiff states that she is “suffering from depression, anxiety,
hopelessness, fearfulness, humiliation, shame, loss in confidence, tearfulness,
restlessness, and severe stress. From around May 2019 through the end of my
employment on July 1, 2019, Arriola’s bullying, yelling, intimidating physical
gestures, and dismissive hostility towards me caused me so much stress that [she]
lost sleep and had to start taking sleep medication. . . .” (Alonzo Decl. ¶
25.)
On October 8, 2024, the Court ordered counsel
to submit an expert witness declaration to the Court regarding the emotional
distress experienced by the Plaintiff. On October 31, 2024, the expert witness
declaration was filed. Plaintiff submits the declaration of psychologist, Dr.
Anthony Reading, who has been in continuous clinical practice since 1974 and a
qualified medical examiner. (Reading Decl. ¶¶ 4, 16.) Dr. Reading consulted
with Plaintiff on October 23, 2024, and found “[o]wing to threatening conduct
of Mr. Arriola, which rose to a level where Ms. Alonzo feared for both her
professional and personal safety, she reported the onset of symptoms of anxiety
seen in the context of threat, with heightened vigilance, loss of safety,
anxiety, re-experiencing, avoidance and a negative change in her emotions and
mental landscape.” (Id. at ¶ 49.) Dr. Reading further concluded “arising
from her involvement with Mr. Arriola and his conduct, Ms. Alonzo, to a
reasonable degree of psychiatric probability, has developed symptoms leading to
the onset of psychiatric disorders in the form of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder
and a Major Depressive Disorder, which is rated as a first episode and
moderate. Neither disorder has entered remission and absent her involvement
with Mr. Arriola she would not have developed these psychiatric disorders at
this time.” (Id. at ¶ 51.) Dr. Reading also states “[Plaintiff] is a
candidate for mental health treatment in the form of an evaluation for
psychotropic medication and one year of weekly cognitive behavioral
psychotherapy, with provision for four additional periods of weekly cognitive
behavioral psychotherapy each over six months to deal with symptom
reactivation.” (Id. at ¶ 53.) ““For harm to body, feelings or
reputation, compensatory damages reasonably proportioned to the intensity and
duration of the harm can be awarded without proof of amount other than evidence
of the nature of the harm. There is no direct correspondence between money and
harm to the body, feelings, or reputation . . . The discretion of the judge or
jury determines the amount of recovery, the only standard being such an amount
as a reasonable person would estimate as fair compensation.” (Duarte v.
Zachariah (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1652, 1664-1665.) Thus,
Plaintiff’s evidence is insufficient to support that the substantial amount of $3,000,000.00
is reasonable.
Plaintiff
also seeks $137,239.75 in attorney’s fees. As previously noted by this Court on
September 13, 2023, this amount is beyond the fee schedule limits under Local
Rule 3.214(a). While Plaintiff submits billing invoices, Plaintiff submits
nothing establishing that the services provided were “extraordinary services,”
as required under Local Rule 3.214(d).
The Court
therefore DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s request for entry of default
judgment.
It
is so ordered.
Dated:
November 18, 2024
_______________________
MEL RED RECANA
Judge of the
Superior Court