TENTATIVE 

Plaintiff Elisa Teague (“Plaintiff”) filed a wrongful death/survivor action, alleging that the motor vehicle driven by Defendant Mauriceo Heredia (“Defendant”) collided with the motorcycle driven by Decedent Joseph Wendell Teague (“Decedent”), causing Decedent significant injury in which Decedent was pronounced dead on the scene. Plaintiff has properly dismissed all other unnamed defendants to the action. 

The Court grants the request for default judgment, but at a reduced amount from that requested for the following reasons:  

Plaintiff seeks prejudgment interest in the amount of $19,199,982, which Plaintiff’s counsel calculates as 10% of $55,007,800. The $55,007,800 represents Plaintiff’s request for $55 million in general damages and $7,800 in special damages. However, the Court will not grant this request. A plaintiff may recover prejudgment interest on a judgment, provided the damages for which the defendant is responsible are certain or capable of being made certain by calculation. (See Civ. Code § 3287.) However, personal injury actions are “inherently nonpecuniary, unliquidated and not readily subject to precise calculation.” (See Greater Westchester Homeowners Assn. v. Los Angeles (1979) 26 Cal.3d 86, 103.) Based on the evidence provided, Plaintiff has failed to establish she is entitled to prejudgment injuries arising from this wrongful death claim, especially when the vast majority in which the calculation is premised upon is on general damages, which necessarily cannot be ascertained. In terms of the special damages of $7,800, this was not substantiated by any evidence. Further, in a contract-based case, a plaintiff’s request for pre-judgment interest is based on the default prejudgment interest rate of 10% unless a different rate is specified by contract. (Civ. Code § 3289.) However, in a non-contract case, the plaintiff’s request is based on a prejudgment interest rate of 7%. (Cal. Const. Art. 15 § 1.) Plaintiff’s calculation of prejudgment interest is not proper on its face, and therefore the Court will not grant this request for $19,199,982 in prejudgment interest.  

Plaintiff provides that she is the surviving spouse of Decedent, who died from the motorcycle v. motor vehicle accident at the age of 45. Plaintiff declares that aside from funeral expenses, she had to pay $13,416.48 to avoid repossession of Decedent’s vehicle because Decedent’s car loan was not in her name. Plaintiff provides that, aside from her loving relationship with Decedent, Decedent provided services to the household. Decedent attended to the yard and pool, which Plaintiff estimates she must now pay approximately $130-$400 a month. Further, Plaintiff has a disability which makes household chores painful, and must hire a cleaning helper at the expense of around $500 per month. Plaintiff also provides she suffers from the loss of Decedent’s income, and that he made a gross income of $125,000 per year from his employment with Entertainment Partners Enterprise LLC. Alongside Decedent’s other projects, Decedent earned approximately $150,000 a year. Based on the life expectancy of Decedent, who was expected to retire at the age of 65, but died at the age of 45, Plaintiff estimates a loss of $3,375,000 in financial support. 

Plaintiff has provided enough specificity and supporting documents to support an award of for special damages of future contributions, but not enough to justify $55 million in damages. Further, in terms of funeral expenses, Plaintiff provides no substantiating documents in support. As such, the Court will not grant any unsupported amounts. Thus, the request will be reduced accordingly.  

Based on the foregoing, the request for default judgment submitted on November 21, 2023 is GRANTED in the principal amount of $3,575,000, and $588.07 in costs, for the total amount of $3,575,588.07 against Defendant Mauriceo Heredia. ¿¿ 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.¿¿¿¿