Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 20STCV39311, Date: 2024-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV39311    Hearing Date: November 8, 2024    Dept: 82

State of California ex rel. Mami Martinez v. Maki Gruninger

Case No. 20STCV39311

[Tentative] Order Denying Motion for New Trial

            On January 4, 2024, the court issued a default judgment in the following amounts:

            1.         Damages in the amount of $483,366.05 for the qui tam claims plus prejudgment interest in the amount of $234,399.43 for a total of $717,765.48

            2.         Treble damages in the amount of $1,450,098.15

            3.         A statutory penalty of $11,000

            4.         Attorneys’ fees in the amount of $44,387

            5.         Damages in the amount of $250,000 for the individual claims plus prejudgment interest in the amount of $121,232.88 for a total of $371,232.88.

            Now, Defendant moves for a new trial, arguing that these amounts “are excessive since there was no specific amount identified in any of the causes of action, as is required when a defendant has not appeared.”  Defendant is incorrect.  The first and second causes of action—which were based on Defendant having presented false claims directly to the State of California—each sought damages “according to proof, but not less than $400,000 as a result of her IHSS fraud.”  (Complaint, ¶¶ 29, 35.)  The third and fourth causes of action—which were based on Defendant having presented false claims to contractors reimbursed by the State of California—each sought damages “according to proof, but no less than $100,000 as a result of her respite services fraud.”  (Complaint, ¶¶ 40, 45.)  In sum, the complaint provided notice of damages between $500,000 and $1,000,000 on the qui tam claims.  The court awarded damages below this amount, specifically, in the amount of $483,366.06. 

            The complaint provided notice that on the first, second, third, and fourth causes of action, Plaintiff would seek “[t]riple the amount of damages sustained by the State of California and its political subdivisions as a consequence of Defendant’s violations of the California False Claims Act.”  (Complaint, p. 19:7-8.)  The court imposed triple damages based upon an amount of $483,366.06, which was $1,450,098.15.

            The complaint provided notice that Plaintiff would seek civil penalties “of at least $5,500 and a maximum of $11,000” for each of “not less than 240 violations of the California False Claims Act.”  (Complaint, ¶¶ 30, 36, 41, 46.)  Thus, the complaint provided notice that Plaintiff might be assessed $2,640,000 in civil penalties.  The court ordered one civil penalty in the amount of $11,000.

            Finally, the complaint sought damages of $500,000 on each of Plaintiff’s individual claims.  (Complaint, ¶¶ 56, 60, 65, 69.)  The court ordered Defendant to pay $250,000 in total.  Because the judgment was in amounts far lower than those sought by Plaintiff and noticed in the complaint, there is no basis to set aside the judgment. 

            In the alternative, Defendant argues that the default judgment was void because there was no statement of damages.  As authority, Defendant cites Code of Civil Procedure section 425.11(c).  However, that section applies only to “personal injury and wrongful death actions.”  Nor did Plaintiff seek “punitive damages” in this case.     

            Based upon the foregoing, the court denies Defendant’s motion for new trial.  In the alternative, Defendant moves to set aside the default, but the court (Richardson, J.) has already denied that request.  (See Court’s Minute Order, dated September 10, 2024.) 

            The court’s clerk shall provide notice.