Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 20STCV46275, Date: 2025-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV46275    Hearing Date: January 24, 2025    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On August 9, 2023, Plaintiffs M. Saeid Nosrati and Nooshin Haroonia filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants Alexander Escandari and LA Trial Lawyers Inc. for legal malpractice.  On October 10, 2024, the Court entered default against Defendants.  Also on October 10, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a request for entry of default judgment.

The FAC identifies $14,000.00 in arbitration fees, $19,000.00 in unpaid settlement funds, and approximately $200,000.00 in legal fees, for a total of $233,000.00 in damages.  The FAC’s Prayer for Relief seeks $300,000.00 in damages.

Plaintiffs’ proposed judgment is for “$794,415.62, along with costs of suit and post-judgment interest thereon, which shall accrue at the legal rate of ten (10) percent per annum from the date of entry of judgment until paid.”

Plaintiffs’ $794,415.62 in damages consists of $19,000.00 in stolen settlement money, $14,000.00 in stolen arbitration fees, $178,618.61 in attorney fees and costs paid to Defendants, and $500,000.00 in punitive damages.  (Nosrati Decl. ¶¶ 62-64.)  This equals $711,618.61 ($211,618.61 without punitive damages).

According to the CIV-100, the $794,415.62 total already includes $81,980.23 in interest and $816.78 in costs.  The judgment cannot award Plaintiffs additional “costs of suit” if those costs are already included.  Additionally, Plaintiffs do not provide the required calculations for the amount of prejudgment interest.  (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a)(3).)

Plaintiffs request $500,000.00 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.)  Plaintiffs provide no evidence of Defendants’ financial condition, so the Court cannot conclude whether $500,000.00 in punitive damages is reasonable.  Additionally, there is no evidence that Plaintiffs served a Statement of Damages on Defendants prior to entry of default.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 425.115, subd. (f).)

The request for entry of default judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Any future requests for default judgment must use Form JUD-100 as the proposed judgment.

The Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Failure to Enter Default Judgment is CONTINUED to April 25, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 48 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

Clerk to give notice.

         Dated this 24th day of January 2025