Project Sentinel v. Komar ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PROJECT SENTINEL, No. 1:19-cv-00708-DAD-EPG 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 14 JEANETTE KOMAR and SARAH CONCERNING DAMAGES KOMAR, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Project Sentinel’s (“Plaintiff’s”) motion for a default 18 judgment against Defendants Jeanette Komar and Sarah Komar (“Defendants”). (ECF No. 68). 19 In order to receive damages in a default judgment, a plaintiff is required to prove all 20 damages sought in the complaint. See TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917–18 21 (9th Cir. 1987). “[A] default judgment must be supported by specific allegations as to the exact 22 amount of damages asked for in the complaint.” Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Castworld Prod., Inc., 23 219 F.R.D. 494, 499 (C.D. Cal. 2003). A court looks to plaintiff’s “declarations, calculations, and 24 other documentation of damages in determining if the amount at stake is reasonable.” United 25 States v. Yermian, 2016 WL 1399519, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2016) (internal citations omitted). 26 If the facts necessary to determine the damages are not contained in the complaint, or are legally 27 insufficient, they will not be established by default. See Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 980 28 F.2d 1261, 1267 (9th Cir.1992). 1 The Court has begun its review of Plaintiff’s claimed damages and there appear to be 2 mathematical errors. For instance, Plaintiff includes this chart to summarize its claimed damages: 3 ITEM AMOUNT 4 Staff Time $19,530.53 5 Testing and Investigation Expenses $1,201.96 Out of Pocket expenses $110.88 6 Community outreach activities, including staff time and expenses $3,681.80 7 Total Diversion of Resources Damages $26,212.67 Future testing $1,800 8 Future training of defendants/agents $2,400 9 Future monitoring of defendants $2,100 Future community outreach activities $3,190 10 Total Frustration of Mission Damages $9,490 11 Grand Total $35,702.67 (ECF No. 69 at 18). 12 However, there appear to be errors in these totals. The diversion of resources subtotal 13 listed is $26,212.67. However, $19,530.53 + $1,201.96 + $110.88 + $3,681.80 = $24,525.17. The 14 grand total also appears to be incorrect. 15 Some of the individual items also appear to have errors. For instance, Plaintiff seeks 16 $19,530.53 for staff time. (Id.). Plaintiff provides the following breakdown for that figure: 17 18 Hourly Staff Time 19 Staff Member & Title Market Rate (Hours) Total Expense Zoha Khalili, Staff Attorney 275 5.2 $1,430 20 Evelina Nava, Staff Attorney 250 0.9 $225 21 Jennifer Reynolds, Staff Attorney 225 6 $1,350 $4,192.50 staff time and 22 Ann Marquart, Executive Director 325 12.9 $93.03 mileage = $4,285.53 Margarita Maiz, Testing Coordinator 175 7.7 $1,347.50 23 Cristina Figueroa-Cortes, Fair 24 Housing Director 350 1.4 $490 Annie Pan, Supervising Attorney 350 3.9 $3,255 25 Jessica Tankersley, Litigation Dir. 375 22.3 $8,362.50 26 Total $19,530.53 27 (ECF No. 70-2 at 2). 28 /// 1 There are at least two problems with this table. First, with respect to Annie Pan’s figure, 2 | $350 x 3.9 = $1,365, not $3,255. Second, the total does not equal $19,530.53, whether using 3 | $1,365 (amounting to $18,855.53) or $3,255 (amounting to $20,745.53). 4 Given the detection of these errors, the Court will give Plaintiff the opportunity to 5 | recalculate its damages figures, or to explain these calculations in a way that allays the Court’s 6 | concerns. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within seven days of the date of service of 8 | this order, Plaintiff may file revised information concerning damages. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 | Dated: _Mareh 23, 2021 [sf ey 2 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28