Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 19PSCV01160, Date: 2023-03-23 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 19PSCV01160    Hearing Date: March 23, 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 GRANTED in the reduced amount of $8,006,845.

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 applied for a default judgment that the court denied without prejudice on January 10. On January 26, Plaintiff filed a second application for default judgment that the court again denied without prejudice on February 2.

On March 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed the present application for default judgment. An OSC Re: Default Judgment is set for March 23.

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 $8,616,656, including $7,527,191 in damages and $1,089,465 in interest. Because the court finds Plaintiff has submitted sufficient evidence, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s application for default judgment with the following modifications.

While Plaintiff requests $7,527,191 in compensatory damages as the royalties for Plaintiff’s patent, Plaintiff’s FAC and statement of damages both only request $7,000,000 in punitive damages. Because the court cannot award damages in excess of the amount pled in the FAC, the court reduces Plaintiff’s awarded damages to $7,000,000. (Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 829-830.)

Because the court has reduced Plaintiff’s damages to $7,000,000, the court also reduces the awarded interest to $1,006,845 (7% of $7,000,000 divided by 365 = $1,342.46 per diem multiplied by 750 days (9/30/2020 – 10/20/2022) = $1,006,845)

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s application for default judgment is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $8,006,845.

Plaintiff to submit a new judgment consistent with this ruling.