Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00647/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00647-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WHEELER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-05-00647 SBA (EDL)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

On February 11, 2005, Plaintiffs John Wheeler and Gloria Wheeler filed this action against

Defendants City of Oakland, Brookfield Homeowners Association, Wiley Williams, and several

City of Oakland employees and police officers, alleging that Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ civil

rights and committed numerous torts against them by illegally enforcing the City of Oakland’s

Municipal Blight Ordinance and Vehicle Abatement Ordinance against Plaintiffs’ with respect to

vehicles stored on their property. On June 8, 2005, default was entered against Defendants

Brookfield Homeowners Association and Williams, an officer of the Brookfield Homeowners

Association. On July 4, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a motion for default judgment against Brookfield and

Williams. 

On September 7, 2006, Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment was referred to this Court

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72-1 for a Report and Recommendation. Because this matter is

appropriate for decision without oral argument, the October 30, 2006 hearing was vacated. 

Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) authorizes the Court to enter judgment against a

defendant against whom a default has been entered, assuming that defendant is not an infant, is not

Case 4:05-cv-00647-SBA Document 89 Filed 10/30/06 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

incompetent or in military service. “The general rule of law is that upon default the factual

allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages, will be taken as true.” 

Geddes v. United Financial Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977) (citing Pope v. United States,

323 U.S. 1, 12 (1944)). Generally, upon entry of default, the factual allegations of the complaint are

taken as true, except for those relating to damages. See Televideo Systems, Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826

F.2d 915, 917 (9th Cir.1987). 

Facts

According to the complaint, Plaintiffs are the owners of 181 Hunter Avenue in Oakland and

of three automobiles, a 1957 Bentley, a 1975 Mercedes Benz and a 1987 Chrysler. First Amended

Compl. (“FAC”) ¶¶ 12-13. The vehicles were mechanically operable, insured and registered and

were not abandoned, and were parked in Plaintiffs’ driveway or parking pad. Id. ¶¶ 14-15. Since

2000, Defendants entered onto Plaintiffs’ property to inspect the vehicles and Plaintiffs have been

wrongfully cited for parking the vehicles in unapproved locations. Id. ¶¶ 17-19. In September 2000,

after a hearing, Plaintiffs received a letter apologizing for the misapplication of the municipal

ordinances. Id. ¶ 20. After that, in 2001 and 2002, Defendants continued to come to Plaintiffs’

property to inspect the cars and to fine Plaintiffs. Id. ¶ 21. Plaintiffs complained to the City that

they were being continually harassed about these vehicles. Id. ¶ 24. The City Auditor opined that

the City wrongfully applied the municipal ordinances under which Plaintiffs were being fined. Id. ¶

24. Plaintiffs allege, however, that they continued to be harassed in 2003. Id. ¶¶ 25-26. In 2004,

the City Auditor again opined that the ordinances did not apply to Plaintiffs’ vehicles. Id. ¶ 27. Yet

Plaintiffs continued to be cited in 2004. Id. ¶¶ 28-29. 

Plaintiffs allege specifically that Defendant Williams, acting on behalf of the Brookfield

Homeowners Association, wrongfully entered onto the property on several occasions from 2000 to

2004. Id. ¶ 30. Plaintiffs also allege that Williams, on behalf of the Association, conspired with the

City to harass Plaintiffs and to deprive them of their rights. Id. 

Discussion

In their motion, Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages from Defendants

Brookfield and Williams. Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that these Defendants trespassed on their

Case 4:05-cv-00647-SBA Document 89 Filed 10/30/06 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

property seven times (see Wheeler Decl. ¶ 3) for which Plaintiffs seek $1,000 in compensatory

damages and $40,000 in punitive damages for each trespass, for a total of $287,000. Plaintiffs seek

$1,000 in compensatory damages and $40,000 in punitive damages for each of nine occasions on

which Plaintiffs say that the City violated their rights and entered their property (FAC ¶¶ 18-19, 21-

22, 25-26) at the urging of Defendants Brookfield and Williams (FAC ¶ 30), for a total of $369,000. 

Plaintiffs also seek $1,000 in compensatory damages and $40,000 in punitive damages for each of

six wrongfully issued Notice to Abate or Notice of Violation that were issued by the City (FAC ¶¶

19, 25, 26, 28, 29) at the urging of Defendants Brookfield and Williams (FAC ¶ 30), for a total of

$246,000. In total, Plaintiffs seek $902,000 in damages. 

Plaintiffs, however, have not provided sufficient evidence to support the damages sought in

their motion for purposes of default judgment. The only evidence with respect to damages

submitted by Plaintiffs was the declaration of John Wheeler. Mr. Wheeler adequately states that he

has suffered emotional distress as a result of Defendants’ conduct, but his declaration does not

provide any calculation of any specific amounts of damages. It is not clear to the Court the extent to

which Plaintiffs have suffered compensatory damages. Further, Plaintiffs have provided no

evidence of Defendants’ wealth from which the Court could begin to calculate an appropriate

punitive damages award. See Professional Seminar Consultants, Inc. v. Sino American Technology

Exchange Council, 727 F.2d 1470, 1473 (9th Cir. 1984) (stating that the factors to be considered in

fixing a punitive damage award are: (1) the nature of the defendants’ acts; (2) the amount of

compensatory damages awarded; and (3) the wealth of the defendants); Shanghai Automation

Instrument Co. v. Juei, 194 F. Supp. 2d 995, 1008 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (declining to award punitive

damages for default judgment where there was insufficient evidence of the defendants’ wealth); see

also William W. Schwarzer, et al., Civil Procedure Before Trial, § 6:99.1 (Rutter Group 2005)

(punitive damages cannot be awarded on default judgment without a prove-up hearing because they

are not liquidated or readily computable). 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court recommends denying the motion for default judgment

Case 4:05-cv-00647-SBA Document 89 Filed 10/30/06 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1 Plaintiffs have also not met their burden of providing evidence to show that these

Defendants are not infants, incompetent or in military service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2).

4

without prejudice.1 Any party may serve and file specific written objections to this recommendation

within ten (10) court days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ.

P. 72; Civil Local Rule 72-3. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right

to appeal the district court’s order. 

Dated: October 30, 2006 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:05-cv-00647-SBA Document 89 Filed 10/30/06 Page 4 of 4