Judge Michelle Williams Court, Case 21STCV45338 2022-10-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 21STCV45338, Date: 2022-10-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV45338 Hearing Date: October 11, 2022 Dept: 74

21STCV45338 PREIYA JAIN vs JANGSHER DHALIWAL

OSC RE ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT

TENTATIVE RULING: The court will enter judgment as follows:

Plaintiff seeks damages of $1,000,000.00 for “for the $200,000 loan amount, emotional distress caused by Defendant’s fraud, plus interest and costs.”

Plaintiff has provided evidence supporting a loan of $200,000.00 to Defendant and Defendant’s failure to repay the amount owed. (Jain Decl. ¶¶ 3-13, Ex. 1.)

Therefore, Plaintiff seeks $800,000.00 in emotional distress damages. Emotional distress damages are recoverable in connection with a claim for intentional fraud. (See e.g. (Branch v. Homefed Bank (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 793, 799 (“[I]n cases of intentional misrepresentation recovery for emotional distress need not be accompanied by physical injury.”); Rosener v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 740, 755; Crisci v. Security Ins. Co. of New Haven, Conn. (1967) 66 Cal.2d 425, 433–434 (“We are satisfied that a plaintiff who as a result of a defendant’s tortious conduct loses his property and suffers mental distress may recover not only for the pecuniary loss but also for his mental distress.”).)

Plaintiff’s declaration provides the following regarding Plaintiff’s emotional distress:

Once I began to suspect that DHALIWAL had defrauded me and swindled me out of $200,000 and had no intention of paying me back, I began to get frantic and distressed, and this impacted my life greatly in a number of areas:

My parents were aware of the money I had loaned DHALIWAL, and it was humiliating having my parents chastise me for being so foolish and naïve to have lent DHALIWAL the money. Now, I am more secretive when it comes to sharing aspects of my life with my family, which is devastating since we are very close.

I personally felt foolish and mortified that I had been conned by my personal version of the “Tinder Swindler.” I also became less trusting when meeting new people and trying to forge new relationships. For approximately two years after Fall 2019 when I realized I had been defrauded, I had difficulty dating. I was distressed and concerned over the future of my personal life, which I had envisioned as including a husband and children. I was already in my mid- to late-thirties and was worried time was running out for me, but I could no longer put myself out there due to the fear and self-doubt I was experiencing, as well as the lack of confidence in my own judgment. I was not able to have another successful romantic relationship until I finally met my now-fiancé in October 2021, nearly two full years after my experience with DHALIWAL turned sour.

I have been in therapy for this emotional and mental distress, and distrust of men, continuously since Fall 2019.

I also began to suffer significant emotional distress at not just having been defrauded by DHALIWAL, but due to the financial hardship I was suffering as a result of losing $200,000. When I loaned the money to DHALIWAL, this was nearly the entirety of my savings. I had slowly saved up the $200,000 by working full time since October 2014 by scrimping and saving. I felt defeated and hopeless having to start from scratch trying to rebuild my future. As my text messages (Exhibits 1-5 hereto) make clear, I regularly expressed to DHALIWAL the hardship it was causing me that he would not repay me the money, and how upset I was, so DHALIWAL was well aware that his actions were causing me severe distress.

(Jain Decl. ¶¶ 14-15.)

“[I]f the relief requested in the complaint is more complicated than that, consisting of either nonmonetary relief, or monetary relief in amounts which require either an accounting, additional evidence, or the exercise of judgment to ascertain (such as emotional distress damages, pain and suffering, or punitive damages), the plaintiff must request entry of judgment by the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 585, subd. (b).) In such cases, the plaintiff must affirmatively establish his entitlement to the specific judgment requested.” (Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 287.)

The Court may award emotional distress damages “as appears by the evidence to be just,” or order the damages be assessed by a jury. (Code Civ. Proc. § 585(b).) “[T]here is no fixed or absolute standard by which to compute the monetary value of emotional distress.” (Plotnik v. Meihaus (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1590, 1602 quoting Hope v. California Youth Authority (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 577, 595, 36 Cal.Rptr.3d 154.)

The Court finds emotional distress damages of $ 25,000 to be just based upon the evidence provided and the circumstances of this case. (Code Civ. Proc. § 585(b).)