Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 23SMCV04549, Date: 2024-11-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV04549    Hearing Date: November 1, 2024    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Umit Bozer (“Plaintiff”) requests for default judgment against Defendant Hakob Navasardyan (“Defendant”) in the amount of $250,000, which is composed of general damages in the amount of $200,000 and special damages in the amount of $50,000.

            Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint alleges three causes of action for (1) assault; (2) battery; and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress.  Defendant was personally served with a copy of the summons and complaint on October 6, 2023. Default was entered against Defendant on March 19, 2023, and the Doe defendants were dismissed on August 28, 2024. 

            The FAC requests $200,000 in general damages and $50,725.56 in special damages.  Therefore, Plaintiff does not seek damages that are in excess of what is pled in the operative FAC. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 580, subd. (a) [“The relief granted to the plaintiff, if there is no answer, cannot exceed that demanded in the complaint”]; Levine v. Smith (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1136-1137 [“when recovering damages in a default judgment, the plaintiff is limited to the damages specified in the complaint”].) 

            In support of the request, Plaintiff has provided a June 13, 2024 declaration, which provides, in relevant part:

3. On October 22, 2022, the I was dining with six (6) other people at a round table business meeting over dinner at Avra Restaurant in Beverly Hills, California.

4. I and all but one of my dinner companions are ethnically Turkish. This fact was known not only to the restaurant and the staff, but also to other patrons because much of our conversation was conducted in the Turkish language.

5. A stranger, the individual who I now know is Defendant Hakob Navasardyan, was dining with a woman (DOE 1) at another table near my table.

6. At approximately 7:00 in the evening, while my colleagues and I were having a pleasant conversation in Turkish, Defendant DOE 1 approached our table, uninvited, and shouted, “Shame on Turkey!”

7. My companions and I were uncomfortable and dismayed by this outburst. We all felt ostracized and excluded, solely based upon our ethnicity and native language, I know my companions felt as I did based on our discussions after the incident.

8. After she uttered this aggressive statement, Defendant DOE 1 ran out the restaurant exit.

9. Confused and upset, I and one other guest rose to assess the situation. Defendant Navasardyan then approached my table and shouted in a threatening manner, “What are you going to do about it?”

10. I did not verbally respond or make any threatening movement toward Defendant. However, Defendant Navasardyan attacked me, punching me in the face. The blow was full force and totally unprovoked.

11. The blow knocked me off my feet. I fell, hitting my chair and collapsed onto the floor of the restaurant. I lost consciousness for about 10 seconds.

[…]

15. Defendants owed me a duty to not cause me any physical, mental, or emotional harm.

16. Defendants breached that duty when they verbally assaulted me on the basis of my nationality and native language. Defendant Navasardyan further breached that duty when he physically assaulted and battered me by punching me in the face.

17. Because of Defendants’ actions, I suffered physical injuries along with mental and emotional harm.

18. But for Defendants’ actions, I would not have suffered harm.

[…]

23. I was physically injured by the verbal abuse, assault, and battery. I also suffered severe emotional distress, in the form of humiliation, and post-assault emotional injuries.

24. Defendant intentionally and maliciously caused this harm to me. It was clear that his animosity towards me was based on my nationality and native language. Thus, Defendant’s actions amounted to a hate crime.

25. I received a bill from the City of Beverly Hills for $725.56 for medical aid given at the restaurant. However, I was reimbursed this amount by the District Attorney’s office and do not claim this as part of my damages.

26. I also lost profits of at least $50,000.00 for not being able to work for most of 2023. I was not able acquire new customers, and my business in fact lost money from 2022 to 2023. My company brought in a revenue of $1.7 million in 2022, but that revenue decreased to $1.35 million for 2023’s year-end revenue, which I attribute to the suffering I endured as a result of this attack.

27. Per my Statement of Damages, I am seeking $100,000.00 in past and future pain, suffering, and inconvenience. Given the hate crime nature of this attack, I have had trouble sleeping and am still in fear for my life to this date. I have had to consult with medical professionals both for therapy and prescriptions to help me get back on my feet. I had difficulty doing everyday tasks such as travelling, attending business meetings, or even expositions and conferences for the 2023 year. Furthermore, I now have a permanent hearing problem due to Defendant’s punch to my head. My doctors have advised that the hearing loss I permanent, and that there is no chance that my hearing will improve over time. Shortly after the attack, I started experiencing heart problems due to heavy stress. Around November 2023, I had to have stent inserted into my blood vessels to prevent a future heart attack. I am also now on medication that prevents blood clots. All these medical issues arose because I was attacked by Defendant. I am not seeking medical damages, but in light of all the issues I have suffered and will suffer, the sum of $100,000 is reasonable.

28. Furthermore, I am asking for $100,000.00 in emotional distress. Given the hate crime nature of this attack, I have had trouble sleeping and am still in fear for my life to this date. I was so fearful of my own life a year ago that I even sold my house in Hawthorne because I was worried that my address was disclosed in the public records regarding the assault criminal case. I didn’t even wait for the sale of my house to go through before purchasing a new residence due to my fear.

(June 13, 2024 Bozer Decl. at ¶¶ 3-11; 15-18; 23-28.)

            Plaintiff also submitted an October 22, 2024 Declaration, which provides:

25. I also lost profits of at least $50,000.00 for not being able to work for most of 2023. I was not able acquire new customers, and my business in fact lost money from 2022 to 2023. My company brought in a revenue of $1.7 million in 2022, but that revenue decreased to $1.35 million for 2023’s year-end revenue. I attempted to balance the deficit in revenue in 2023 by offsetting my expenses for that year. I did not renew the customer receivables insurance, whose premium is normally about $12,000.00 per year, but I instead paid only about $2,000.00 in 2023 to maintain the policy but inactive. I also did not hire any professional service to develop any new customer chains (which costed me about $5,000 between 2022 and 2023). Thus, my expenses were less for 2023, but they should have been more had the status quo been maintained into that year. But for the Incident, I would have taken on these expenses in 2023 to further develop and maintain my business. Attached hereto as Exhibit B are true and correct copies of Profit & Loss statements for my company Bozer Global Inc. for the years 2022 and 2023.

(Oct. 22, 2024 Bozer Decl. at ¶ 25.)

            Attached as Exhibit B are profit and loss statements for 2022 and 2023, showing income from sales in 2022 of $1,797,205.13 and income from sales in 2023 of $1,353,714.48.  (Ex. B to Oct. 22, 2024 Bozer Decl.)  Thus, Plaintiff has substantiated the requested $50,000 in lost profits.  Plaintiff has also substantiated the requested $200,000 in general damages (See June 13, 2024 Bozer Decl. ¶¶ 27-28.)

CONCLUSION

            Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for $250,000 in damages is granted. 

            Further, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s proposed Default Judgment includes costs in the amount of $858.86, but Plaintiff failed to request costs in the Request for Default Judgment filed on October 22, 2024.  Accordingly, the Court will strike the costs from the proposed Default Judgment and enter the Default Judgment as amended.

DATED:  November 1, 2024                         ________________________________

                                                                        Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                        Judge of the Superior Court