Williams v. La Perla North America, Inc.

Filing 64

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT DAMAGES. Signed by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 8/28/2024. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/28/2024)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
GREGG WILLIAMS,

7

Plaintiff,

8

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR DEFAULT
JUDGMENT DAMAGES

v.

9

LA PERLA NORTH AMERICA, INC.,

10

Defendant.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 3:23-cv-01633-JSC

12
13

Gregg Williams, in his capacity as court-appointed Receiver, alleges La Perla North

14

America, Inc. (“La Perla”) breached a lease between La Perla and Williams’ predecessor in

15

interest by vacating the leased commercial property located at 170 Geary Street, San Francisco,

16

California in April 2021 and failing to pay rent since May 2021. (Dkt. No. 1.)1 Plaintiff seeks

17

damages in the amount of $1,325,993.10. (Dkt. No. 63.) The Court previously granted Plaintiff’s

18

motion for default judgment and ordered Plaintiff to file a supplemental submission providing

19

more information regarding the monetary demand amount which Plaintiff filed. (Dkt. No. 55.)

20

Finding the supplemental submission insufficient to explain Plaintiff’s damage calculations, the

21

Court ordered another supplemental submission which Plaintiff filed. (Dkt. No. 60.) The Court

22

found the second supplemental submission to be insufficient as well and ordered an evidentiary

23

hearing. (Dkt. No. 61.) During the hearing, the Court examined Mr. Williams about his previous

24

declarations and ordered Mr. Williams to file a third supplemental declaration in support of the

25

motion for default judgment. (Dkt. No. 62.)
Plaintiff’s motion for final judgment on monetary damages remains pending before the

26
27
28

Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the
ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents.
1

1

Court. Having considered the briefing, three supplemental submissions of Mr. Williams, and Mr.

2

Williams’ in-court testimony, the Court AWARDS Plaintiff $1,325,933.10 in damages.
BACKGOUND

3
4

A.

5

The Court previously detailed the Complaint allegations (Dkt. No. 32 at 2-4), and the

United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

Complaint Allegations

Court adopts that description by reference here.

7

B.

8

The Court ordered La Perla’s default on April 4, 2024. (Dkt. No. 50.) Plaintiff filed a

Procedural Background

9

motion for default judgement, and the Court granted the motion. (Dkt. Nos. 51, 54.) The Court

10

granted Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs, awarding $152,630.10 in attorneys’ fees

11

and $1,447.31 in costs. (Dkt. No. 54.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a supplemental

12

submission with any supplemental evidence regarding claimed damages. (Id.) Plaintiff filed a

13

supplemental submission to address the Court’s questions about Plaintiff’s damage calculations.

14

(Dkt. No. 55.) Finding the supplemental submission insufficient to explain damage calculations,

15

the Court ordered Plaintiffs to file a second supplemental submission, and Plaintiffs did so. (Dkt.

16

No. 60.) The second submission was also insufficient, so the Court scheduled an evidentiary

17

hearing. (Dkt. No. 61.) At the hearing, the Court questioned Mr. Williams about his previous

18

declarations and the damages calculation. (Dkt. No. 62.) In light of admitted errors in the second

19

submission, the Court then ordered Mr. Williams to file a third supplemental submission. (Id.)

20
21

LEGAL STANDARD
On a motion for default judgment, the Court does not accept factual allegations regarding

22

damages as true. TeleVideo Sys., Inc., 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (citing Geddes v. United Financial

23

Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977)). Claimants are required to prove all damages sought in

24

the complaint and damages must not exceed that amount. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c). “The district

25

court may determine the amount of damages without an evidentiary hearing where ‘the amount

26

claimed is a liquidated sum or capable of mathematical calculation.’” Lasheen v. Embassy of the

27

Arab Republic of Egypt, 625 F. App’x 338, 341 (9th Circ. 2015) (quoting Davis v. Fendler, 650

28

F.2d 1154, 1161 (9th Circ. 1981)). Such damages should be “clearly ascertainable based on the
2

1

records” submitted by a plaintiff. Id. If a plaintiff provides no “sum certain nor any evidence

2

supporting its request” for damages, “any such amount cannot be included in the judgement.”

3

Mesa Underwriters Specialty Insurance Co. v. Paradise Skate, Inc., No. 15-01253, 2016 WL

4

9045622, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2016)).
DISCUSSION

5
6
7

revised declaration (Dkt. No. 63), the Court finds Plaintiff has proved its damages by a

8

preponderance of the evidence in the amount of $1,325,933.10 and will issue a judgment awarding

9

Plaintiff that amount in damages, plus the attorneys’ fees and costs previously awarded.

10
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Upon review of Plaintiff’s Revised General Ledger (Dkt. No. 63-1), and Plaintiff’s further

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 28, 2024

12
13
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3