Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 21STCV02631, Date: 2023-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV02631    Hearing Date: April 11, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On January 18, 2022, Plaintiff Harry Jones filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Defendant Cobalt Construction Company.  The Court entered default against Defendant on June 7, 2022.  On July 29, 2022, the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment.  On November 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed this request for entry of default judgment.  The November 1, 2022 request is not substantially different from the July 27, 2022 request.

Plaintiff seeks a judgment of $4,261,659.54, consisting of $4,233,122.23 in damages, $16,877.77 in prejudgment interest, $10,300.00 in attorney fees, and $1,359.54 in costs.

“‘Plaintiffs in a default judgment proceeding must prove they are entitled to the damages claimed.’  [Citation].”  (Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 288.)  “[T]he plaintiff must affirmatively establish his entitlement to the specific judgment requested.” (Id. at p. 287.)

Plaintiff’s $4,233,122.23 in damages consists of emotional distress damages of $198,402.45 for disability discrimination; emotional distress damages of $198,402.45 for failure to accommodate disability; emotional distress damages of $198,402.45 for failure to engage in an interactive process; emotional distress damages of $198,402.45 for failure to prevent discrimination; emotional distress damages of $198,402.43 for wrongful termination; lost income of $241,110.00; and $3,000,000.00 in punitive damages.  (Brief at p. 9.)

Plaintiff provides a copy of his paystub from November 19, 2018 through November 25, 2018, reflecting $1,710.00 in weekly earnings and $79,840.00 year-to-date.  (Jones Decl., Ex. C.)  Plaintiff declares that after his April 19, 2019 termination, he was unable to secure employment elsewhere until January 2022.  (Jones Decl. ¶¶ 11, 15-16.)  Plaintiff has therefore provided evidence of lost income damages of $241,110.00 for the 141 weeks between his termination and his new employment.  (See Brief at p. 6.)

Plaintiff’s statement that he suffered “emotional distress, mental anguish, shame, and humiliation . . . anxiety, depression, insomnia, and loss of appetite . . . significant difficulties paying my bills, and problems in my marriage” (Jones Decl. ¶ 13) is insufficient to support a total of $992,012.23 in compensatory damages for emotional distress.  (See Brief at pp. 8-9.)  Additionally, Plaintiff’s emotional distress damages are “damages for personal injury.”  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 425.11, subd. (b).)  There is no evidence that Plaintiff served a Statement of Damages for the FAC on Defendant before entry of default.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 425.11, subd. (c).)

Plaintiff seeks $3,000,000.00 in punitive damages.  (Brief at pp. 1-2, 9.)  The amount of punitive damages must reasonably relate to the amount of actual damages.  (Uzyel v. Kadisha (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 866, 924.)  “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.)  Like with his prior request, Plaintiff provides a copy of a report from Glassdoor that shows that Defendant receives approximately $100 to $500 million in annual revenue and employees upwards of 200 employees.  (Bazerkanian Decl. ¶ 15 & Ex. K.)  Plaintiff again does not demonstrate personal knowledge of or establish a foundation for the content contained in this exhibit.  Thus, the Court cannot conclude whether $3,000,000.00 in punitive damages is reasonable.  Additionally, there is no evidence that Plaintiff served a Statement of Damages on Defendant for the FAC prior to entry of default.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 425.115, subd. (f).)

Plaintiff requests $10,300.00 in attorney fees authorized by statute.  Counsel provides a copy of billing records.  (Bazerkanian Decl., Ex. L.)  This amount appears reasonable.

Plaintiff does not provide a declaration with calculations for his $16,877.77 in prejudgment interest.  (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a)(3).)  Plaintiff’s brief states that interest was calculated at a rate of 7-percent on his $241,110.00 in lost income.  (Brief at p. 8.)

Plaintiff seeks $1,359.54 in costs.  Plaintiff provides counsel’s Itemized Costs Statement.  (Bazerkanian Decl. ¶ 17 & Ex. M.)  As noted in the prior order, at least $65.46 of the itemized costs is for “Postage, printing, report,” which are not statutorily allowable costs.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (b)(3).)  The Court cannot determine which are the costs in the Itemized Costs Statement that Plaintiff is seeking to recover and whether the requested amount is allowable.

The request for entry of default judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  The Order to Show Cause Re: Entry of Default Judgment is continued to July 11, 2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 48 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

If Plaintiff is unable to obtain a default judgment, the Court may dismiss the action.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 583.410, 583.420, subd. (a)(2)(B); California Rules of Court, rule 3.1340(a).)

Clerk to give notice.

         Dated this 11th day of April 2022