TENTATIVE 

This is plaintiff Ivan Rene Moore’s (“Plaintiff”) fourth request for default judgment. Plaintiff filed this action against defendants Jaari Zvi (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 10 for damages arising from an automobile collision. Plaintiff sets forth three causes of action for negligence, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”). All unnamed Doe defendants have been dismissed. 

The complaint does not set forth a cognizable basis for battery on the grounds that Plaintiff “did not consent to Defendant smashing into Plaintiff’s automobile.” (Compl. at ¶ 43). Further, the complaint does not set forth a sufficient basis for IIED on the grounds of this automobile accident. There is no allegation that Defendant intended to collide Plaintiff’s vehicle with the express purpose of causing severe emotional distress to Plaintiff. [Grappo v. McMills (2017) 11 Cal. App. 5th 996, 1012 [In a default judgment situation, “‘it is the duty of the court to act as gatekeeper, ensuring that only the appropriate claims get through.’”] 

On this renewed application for default judgment, Plaintiff’s declaration continues to be bereft of any supporting evidence despite the Court having provided, in great detail, all the deficiencies and providing Plaintiff another opportunity to cure. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions, a defaulting defendant does not admit to the damages. Rather, a defaulting defendant admits only the well pled facts concerning liability, but Plaintiff must still introduce admissible prima facie evidence of damages. (Johnson v. Stanhiser (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 357, 361.) The request for admissions deemed admitted against Defendant regarding liability does not waive the requirement that Plaintiff substantiate his damages with evidence on default.  

Although the CIV-100 states Plaintiff is seeking only general damages in the amount of $261,247.12, Plaintiff’s declaration makes it clear that this calculation is an aggregate of special, general, and punitive damages. Plaintiff seeks property damage, rental car costs, medical specials, and general damages for pain and suffering, yet refuses once more to provide any documentation of his special damages, or any medical records due to cited privacy reasons. The Court already noted in the previous denial that when a Plaintiff makes a claim for personal injuries, the right to privacy regarding Plaintiff’s conditions that he puts directly at issue are waived by filing suit for the related injuries. (Evid. Code, § 996.) The Court will not grant Plaintiff a fifth bite of the apple to prove special damages when Plaintiff continues to be recalcitrant in refusing to provide evidence substantiating any of his claims. 

However, in terms of the IIED claim regarding the racial epithets directed at Plaintiff after the collision, combined with the attempt to urinate on Plaintiff in front of a crowd of people, the Court finds the circumstances sufficiently aggravating to grant punitive damages, but not to the full extent requested.  

Therefore, the Court awards Plaintiff general damages for pain and suffering in the amount of $5,000 and punitive damages in the amount of $5,000. Plaintiff is also awarded his costs of $510 for clerk’s filing fees and process server’s fees. (CCP §1033.5 (a)(1) & (4).)  

The Court notes that Plaintiff has not filed a proposed judgment on judicial council form JUD-100, which is a prerequisite to granting default judgment.  

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s application for default judgment filed on February 16, 2024 is CONDITIONALLY GRANTED in the principal amount of $10,000, and $510 in costs, against Jaari Zvi. Plaintiff is ordered to file a proposed order using JUD-100 [Rev. January 1, 2024] within ten (10) days.   

Moving party is ordered to give notice.