Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 19STCV44908, Date: 2025-06-03 Tentative Ruling

Defendant Ampaunchit Wiwatniwong aka Posey Chan did not appear at the August 26, 2024 Final Status Conference and Jury Trial, and she failed to comply with the September 20, 2022 Trial Preparation Order. The Court therefore ordered her answers stricken and placed her in default.

On May 9, 2025, Plaintiff Sumalai Sapphaithoon filed a request for default judgment.

The Court may relieve a party from a judgment resulting from mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).) The application for relief must be made within a reasonable time, not to exceed six months, after the judgment. (Ibid.) “Section 473 is often applied liberally where the party in default moves promptly to seek relief, and the party opposing the motion will not suffer prejudice if relief is granted. [Citations.] In such situations ‘very slight evidence will be required to justify a court in setting aside the default.’ [Citation.]” (Elston v. City of Turlock (1985) 38 Cal.3d 227, 233.)

Defendant argues that the default should be vacated because her prior statements of disqualification should have been granted, so the entry of default is void. (Motion at pp. 4-10.) This is an improper and untimely request for reconsideration of the Court’s orders striking her statements of disqualification. “No application to reconsider any order or for the renewal of a previous motion may be considered by any judge or court unless made according to [section 1008].” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (e).) “The name of a motion is not controlling, and, regardless of the name, a motion asking the trial court to decide the same matter previously ruled on is a motion for reconsideration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008.” (Powell v. County of Orange (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1573, 1577.) A motion for reconsideration must be filed within ten days of service of the order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (a).)

Construed as a motion for reconsideration, this motion is untimely. Plaintiff also does not present any new facts, circumstances, or law. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (a); see also Mink v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1342.)

Plaintiff seeks a judgment of $1,405,671.39, consisting of $1,326,256.39 in damages, $2,015.00 in costs, and $77,400.00 in attorney fees, as well as declaratory relief.

Plaintiff’s damages consist of $11,650.00 in statutory damages, $20,000.00 in civil penalties, $89,340.00 in treble damages, $5,266.39 in economic damages, $400,000.00 in noneconomic damages, and $800,000.00 in punitive damages.

The statutory damages, civil penalties, and treble damages are legally supported. (Civ. Code, §§ 789.3, subd. (c)(2), § 1940.2, subd. (b); L.A.M.C. §1 51.09.A.10.)

The economic damages consist of the replacement cost of $2,000.00 for household items, $3,000.00 cash that was never returned, and $266.39 for the rental value of the rental unit during the 17 days it was uninhabitable. These amounts are supported by evidence. (Sapphaithoon Decl. ¶¶ 25, 31; see id. ¶¶ 6, 11-13, 24.)

Plaintiff suffered emotional distress, including depression, anxiety, inability to sleep, humiliation, and fear. (Sapphaithoon Decl. ¶ 42; see id. ¶¶ 7-41.) Considering the totality of the allegations and Plaintiff’s declaration, the Court finds that $400,000.00 is reasonable.

Plaintiff also seeks $800,000.00 in punitive damages. “An award of punitive damages hinges on three factors: the reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct; the reasonableness of the relationship between the award and the plaintiff’s harm; and, in view of the defendant’s financial condition, the amount necessary to punish him or her and discourage future wrongful conduct.” (Kelly v. Haag (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 910, 914.)

Plaintiff’s counsel conducted a search at the office of the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for records of real property transactions in which Defendant was a party. (Elsner Decl. ¶ 27.) Plaintiff provides evidence of the value of Defendant’s real estate from professional appraisers. One expert determined that the market value of the Maple Street property is $1,120,000.00 as of March 9, 2025; the Irving Avenue property is $1,500,000.00 as of March 9, 2025; the Holyoke Drive property is $790,000.00 as of March 9, 2025; the Ramona Street property is $816,000.00 as of March 12, 2025; the Orange Grove Avenue property is $515,000.00 as of March 9, 2025; and the Laveta Terrace property is $1,225,000.00 as of March 9, 2025. (Cross Decl. ¶¶ 7-12 & Exs. A-F.) Another expert determined that the market value of the Raymer property is $590,000.00 as of February 10, 2025. (Brust Decl. ¶ 5 & Ex. A.)

Considering the reprehensibility of Defendant’s conduct, the reasonableness of the relationship between the award and the Plaintiff’s harm, and Defendant’s financial condition, the Court finds that $800,000.00 in punitive damages is a reasonable amount to punish Defendant and discourage future wrongful conduct.

Considering the totality of this litigation and the evidence presented, the Court will approve the requested $77,400.00 in attorney fees (authorized by statute). The $2,015.00 in costs is also reasonable and recoverable.

The requested injunctive relief was properly alleged in the operative complaint.

The request for default judgment is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed judgment submitted on May 9, 2025.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court