Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 21STCV35840, Date: 2022-08-26 Tentative Ruling
Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.
In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:
The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.
Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.
If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.
**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.
Case Number: 21STCV35840 Hearing Date: August 26, 2022 Dept: 31
DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Background
On September 29, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant Jeff Bankston, and Does 1 to 20 for:
1) Defamation
2) Malicious Prosecution
3) Abuse of Process
4) Infliction of Emotional Distress
01/28/22 – Proof of Service by personal service was filed for Defendant Jeff Bankston.
02/16/22 – Statement of Damages was served on Plaintiff.
03/08/22 – Default Entered as to Jeff Bankston
03/17/22 - Doe Defendants are dismissed.
03/22/22 – Plaintiff requests Default Judgment against Defendant Bankston.
05/16/22 – Defendant Bankston filed an appeal. The appeal was placed in default pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.140(a). The appeal was dismissed on August 05, 2022.
Jeff Bankston filed an appeal on May 16, 2011.
The appeal was dismissed on August 05, 2022.
Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration on July 29, 2022.
Legal Standard
CCP § 585 permits entry of a judgment after a Defendant has failed to timely answer after being properly served. 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; (7) 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; (8) exhibits as necessary; and (9) a request for attorneys’ fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (CRC Rule
Discussion
Plaintiff seeks judgment against Defendant in the total amount of $1,500,000.00 consisting of $1,000,000.00 in special damages, $500,000.00 in general damages $538.00 in costs, and $5,000.00 in attorney fees.
Plaintiff and Defendant were in a landlord-tenant relationship. (Compl. ¶ 6.) The Defendant had been a tenant of Plaintiff’s for over 10 years and rented a one bedroom on an upstairs garage based on an oral agreement. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that after Defendant was in the process of moving out due to owing 9 months of rent, he began a campaign to intimidate, harass, threaten, and make false accusations about Plaintiff to the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”). This resulted in Plaintiff’s arrest, and him being forced to hire an attorney for $5,000.00 and spending two to three days in jail. The District Attorney rejected the charges. (Ex. A.) Defendant’s auto theft allegation was also rejected by the District Attorney. (Ex. B.) On September 1, 2021, Defendant called the LAPD requesting Plaintiff be arrested for stealing Defendant’s cars, not letting Defendant enter the house to wash his laundry, and “stealing his stuff.” (Ex. C.)
Due to Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff has sought psychological therapy due to anxiety, sleeplessness, and other trauma. Plaintiff has attached a therapy report from Dr. Lina Sitomer, Ph.D. (Ex. E.) Dr. Sitomer states that Plaintiff attended two sessions in person on September 11, 2021, and October 11, 2021. Dr. Sitomer reports that Plaintiff is “frustrated and bothered” by the behavior of Defendant and is “continually upset” as the situation was ongoing. (Ex. E.)
Additionally, in his supplemental declaration, Plaintiff argues that in 2019, his property has been appraised as being worth $700,000.00 but that it is worth more but is unable to get the property reappraised. (Ex. D.) Plaintiff does not explain how Defendant’s action prevented him from having the property appraised.
Plaintiff’s Complaint supports the finding that he suffered emotional distress and that Defendant’s conduct prevented him from using and enjoying his property. However, Plaintiff did not provide evidence that Defendant’s action led to substantial losses in earnings or other damages, apart from emotional distress. Dr. Stomer’s letter does not attest to the fact that Plaintiff suffers symptoms of anxiety, sleeplessness, or other trauma other than that Plaintiff was “frustrated” by the situation, however, the Court takes Plaintiff at this word that the situation caused anxiety and sleeplessness.
The Court finds that damages in the amount of $500,000.00 for emotional distress are not supported by the evidence. However, the Court is persuaded that emotional distress was suffered given the Defendant’s actions. The Court finds that an award of $250,000 would be adequate to compensate Plaintiff.
Additionally, Plaintiff’s declaration requesting $5,000.00 in attorney fees is supported only by Plaintiff’s declaration and allegations made in the Complaint. However, the Court credits Plaintiff’s assertion that he was forced to hire an attorney after he we wrongfully arrested and jailed and will award that sum for attorney fees.
a. Punitive Damages
Since Defendant’s actions caused Plaintiff to be arrested and harassed by the police. Plaintiff has proven that Defendant acted with malice or oppression under CCP section 3294:
“‘Malice’ means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.
‘Oppression’ means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights.”
Plaintiff has provided evidence that Defendant acted with malice or oppression when Defendant made reports against Plaintiff to the LAPD that the District Attorney later rejected. (Ex. A, B.) However, absent proof Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages, the Court cannot award punitive damages. No evidence of compensatory damages was presented.
Furthermore, in determining how much to award in punitive damages, Plaintiff needs to provide evidence of Defendant’s financial condition. (Adams v. Murakami (1991) 54 Cal.3d 105, 119.)
“[T]he purpose of punitive damages is not served by financially destroying a defendant. The purpose is to deter, not to destroy.” (Id. at 112.) “[A] punitive damages award is excessive if it is disproportionate to the defendant’s ability to pay.” (Id. [internal citations omitted.].) For this reason, the United States Supreme Court has explained that there are constitutional limitations on punitive damages awards. (State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell (2003) 538 U.S. 408, 416.) “It has been recognized that punitive damages awards generally are not permitted to exceed 10 percent of the defendant’s net worth.” (Weeks v. Baker &McKenzie (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1166 [74 Cal.Rptr.2d 510].)
Based on the above, no punitive damages will be awarded.
Conclusion
Plaintiff’s application for Default Judgment cannot be granted as stated. The Court would grant the motion awarding $250,000.00 for emotional distress damages and $5,000.00 for attorney fees. At the hearing, Plaintiff accepted the Court's suggestion and agrees to a judgment in the amount of $255,538.00, which includes filing fees in the amount of $538.00. Plaintiff must filed a new proposed Judgment.
The parties are strongly encouraged to attend all scheduled hearings virtually or by audio. Effective July 20, 2020, all matters will be scheduled virtually and/or with audio through the Court’s LACourtConnect technology. The parties are strongly encouraged to use LACourtConnect for all their matters. All masking protocols will be observed at the Courthouse and in the courtrooms.