Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case 19PSCV01160 2023-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 19PSCV01160, Date: 2023-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19PSCV01160 Hearing Date: January 10, 2023 Dept: G

Plaintiff Mohammed Khodabakhsh’s Application for Default Judgment

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Mohammed Khodabakhsh’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

This is an action between two former business partners. Plaintiff Mohammed Khodabakhsh is an engineer and inventor in the clean energy technology field. Defendant Terry L. Vechik is a marketer of inventions. In 2008, Plaintiff began working with Defendant to help monetize clean energy technology developed by Plaintiff. Subsequently, Plaintiff alleges Defendant began falsely claiming to be an equal partner in Plaintiff’s work. Plaintiff then claims Defendant took a laptop computer and flash drive from Plaintiff that contained designs, drawings, and marketing materials for Plaintiff’s technology and refused to return it. When Plaintiff confronted Defendant about the laptop computer and flash drive, Plaintiff alleges Defendant threatened to kill Plaintiff. After that, Plaintiff claims a mutual friend informed Plaintiff that Defendant told the friend how Defendant was going to “put a bullet in [Plaintiff’s] head.” Another friend informed Plaintiff that Defendant had offered the friend money to conduct surveillance on Plaintiff and inform Defendant of Plaintiff’s whereabouts.

On December 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant; Rudd Koekkoek, also known as Rudoph Koekkoek; Matchcorp Fin. Services BV; Rene Aemig; Hyperion Capital; Ali Mir Zadeh; Vesten Food Concept AG, Hofstr. 2 CH 6004; and Does 1-25, alleging the following causes of action: (1) declaratory relief, (2) injunctive relief, and (3) conversion.

On September 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) against Defendant and Does 1-25, alleging the following causes of action: (1) conversion, (2) violation of the California Data Access and Fraud Act, (3) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, (4) misappropriation of trade secrets, (5) violation of Penal Code section 496, (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (7) violations of Business and Professions Code section 17200.

On September 22, 2022, after Defendant repeatedly refused to comply with discovery orders by the court and pay sanctions, the court granted Plaintiff’s request to impose terminating sanctions on Defendant and struck Defendant’s answer.

On October 26, 2022, default was entered against Defendant. On January 4, 2023, Plaintiff submitted the present application for default judgment.

An OSC Re: Default Judgment is set for January 10, 2023.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 585 permits entry of a default judgment after a party has filed to timely respond or appear. A party seeking judgment on the default by the court must file a Request for Court Judgment, and: (1) a brief summary of the case; (2) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3) interest computations as necessary; (4) a memorandum of costs and disbursements; (5) a proposed form of judgment; (6) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under CCP § 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (7) exhibits as necessary; and (8) a request for attorneys’ fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (Cal. Rules of Court 3.1800.)

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff seeks default judgment against Defendant in the total amount of $8,006,500, including $7,000,000 in damages and $1,006,500 in interest. For the following reasons, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s application without prejudice.

First, Plaintiff has failed to dismiss the Doe defendants in this action or establish grounds for a separate judgment against specified parties under Code of Civil Procedure section 579 and Rule 3.1800, subdivision (a)(7) of the California Rules of Court, as default judgment is not sought against all defendants in this action.

Second, Plaintiff has failed to justify the amount of damages. A defaulting party confesses to the material allegations of a complaint. (Johnson v. Stanhiser (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 357, 262.) The requesting party can present evidence in the form affidavits and “[t]he facts stated in the affidavit or affidavits shall be within the personal knowledge of the affiant and shall be set forth with particularity, and each affidavit shall show affirmatively that the affiant, if sworn as a witness, can testify competently thereto.” (Code Civ. Pro., § 585, subd. (d).) However, a court can reject a default application if the requesting party fails to present evidence establishing a prima facie case and entitlement to damages, (Taliaferro v. Hoogs (1963) 219 Cal.App.2d 559, 560.)

Here, Plaintiff alleges “special damages in an amount no less than $7,000,000” for conversion. (FAC, ¶ 37.) In support of the application for default judgment, there is no declaration from Plaintiff supporting the amount of $7,000,000. The only declaration provided comes from Plaintiff’s counsel and the only evidence submitted is an unsworn “economic valuation assessment” that values Plaintiff’s patent at $7,500,000. (LeJeune Decl., ¶ 15, Ex. 4, p. 9.) However, Plaintiff does not allege Defendant committed conversion against Plaintiff’s patent but rather that Defendant took a laptop computer and flash drive with intellectual property data from Plaintiff (FAC, ¶ 35), was unjustly enriched (FAC, ¶ 35), and that Plaintiff had to spend time and money attempting to recover the property. (FAC, ¶ 36.) With regards to Plaintiff’s claim for violation of the California Data Access and Fraud Act, Plaintiff also claims Plaintiff had to make expenditures to “verify that a computer system, computer network, computer program, or data was or was not altered, damaged, or deleted by the access.” (FAC, ¶ 42.) Ultimately, the FAC and sparse evidence provided by Plaintiff’s default application do not make clear how Plaintiff comes to the amount of $7,000,000 in damages.

Lastly, it is unclear from Plaintiff’s application if Plaintiff is also seeking punitive or exemplary damages but if so, Plaintiff had not provided any evidence of Defendant’s financial condition to justify such an award. (Farmers & Merchants Trust Co. v. Vanetik (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 638, 648.)

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s application for default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.