Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02018/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02018-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 448
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights - Education
Cause of Action: 20:1681 Title IX Educational Amendments 1992 - Sex Discrimination

---

1

15-CV-2018-CAB-DHB

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NICOLE RAMSER,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICKY LAIELLI; UNIVERSITY OF 

SAN DIEGO, a California corporation; 

and DOES 1-20,

Defendants.

Case No.: 15-CV-2018-CAB-DHB

ORDER RE MOTION FOR 

JUDGMENT AMOUNT AGAINST 

DEFENDANT RICKY LAIELLI

[Doc. No. 115]

The Court has already entered judgment against Defendant Ricky Laielli, and 

Plaintiff now moves for entry of a damages award. Laielli has not responded to Plaintiff’s 

motion. After careful consideration of Plaintiff’s moving papers, combined with the 

Court’s familiarity with the allegations in this case, the motion is granted.

I. Factual Background

The Court provided a detailed account of the facts and allegations in this case in its 

order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant the University of San Diego 

(“USD”) and will not repeat those facts here. Relevant to the instant motion, Plaintiff 

alleged in her first amended complaint (“FAC”) that Laielli raped her in her dorm room at 

USD on February 9, 2014, and asserted four claims against Laielli arising out of that rape: 

Case 3:15-cv-02018-CAB-DHB Document 128 Filed 09/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

15-CV-2018-CAB-DHB

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) rape; (2) hate violence; (3) interference with civil rights under California Civil Code § 

52.1; and (4) gender violence under California Civil Code § 52.4. When Laielli did not 

timely respond to the FAC, Plaintiff requested entry of default, and on March 7, 2016, the 

Clerk of Court entered default against Laielli.

On April 6, 2016, Plaintiff moved for default judgment against Laielli. [Doc. No. 

22.] On April 29, 2016, Laielli filed an opposition in which he also generally denied all of 

the allegations in the FAC. [Doc. No. 25.] In light of Laielli’s appearance in the case, the 

Court denied the motion for default judgment, and ordered Laielli to respond to the FAC. 

[Doc. No. 26.] Laielli filed his response on May 17, 2016, in which he denied the 

allegations in the FAC and provided his version of what happened in Plaintiff’s dorm room 

on the night in question. [Doc. No. 31.] 

From that point forward, Laielli generally failed to participate in discovery and 

ignored court discovery orders on motions to compel, leading Plaintiff to move for 

sanctions [Doc. No. 40] and the Court to order Laielli to show cause why he should not be 

sanctioned, including by entry of default judgment. [Doc. No. 45.] After Laielli did not 

respond to the order to show cause (“OSC”) or appear at the September 30, 2016, hearing 

on the OSC, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions based on “Laielli’s 

continued failure to comply with his discovery obligations, failure to comply with the 

Court’s orders, failure to respond when given the opportunity to explain why he should not 

be sanctioned, and general failure to participate in this litigation.” [Doc. No. 48.] The 

Court sanctioned Laielli by entering judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Laielli on 

all claims in the FAC, and ordered him to pay Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees in the amount of 

$5,985.00 in connection with his non-compliance with discovery obligations. [Id.]

This lawsuit proceeded against USD, and Laielli was deposed on January 9, 2017, 

but Laielli made no further effort to appear in the lawsuit to defend himself. On August 4, 

2017, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of USD. [Doc. No. 111.] On August 

21, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for a judgment amount against Laielli. [Doc. 

Case 3:15-cv-02018-CAB-DHB Document 128 Filed 09/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

15-CV-2018-CAB-DHB

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

No. 115.] Plaintiff served the motion on Laielli at his last known address, and the Court 

allowed Laielli until September 11, 2017 to respond, but no response has been filed. 

II. Discussion

Having already entered judgment against Laielli, the only question before the Court 

is a reasonable damage award for Plaintiff from Laielli. Plaintiff has the burden of proving 

her damages. Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Castworld Products, Inc., 219 F.R.D. 494, 498 

(C.D. Cal. 2003). “In determining damages, a court can rely on the declarations submitted 

by the plaintiff or order a full evidentiary hearing.” Id. In her instant motion, Plaintiff seeks 

damages for her pain and suffering, economic damages, litigation costs, attorney’s fees, 

and punitive damages.

A. Pain and Suffering

Plaintiff asks for non-economic damages of $1.5 million to compensate her for the 

pain and suffering she has suffered since the rape. The motion includes a declaration from 

Plaintiff describing her experiences since the rape and also cites to cases affirming awards 

of non-economic damages similar to or greater than this amount in other sexual assault 

cases. See, e.g., Janice H. v. 696 N. Robertson, LLC, 1 Cal. App. 5th 586, 602-05 (Ct. App. 

2016) (affirming $5.35 million non-economic damage award from jury related to sexual 

assault claims). Accepting her allegations against Laielli as true, what Plaintiff 

experienced was undoubtedly traumatic. Based on her declaration and citation of a recent 

California case affirming a non-economic damage award of over $5 million in a sexual 

assault case, Plaintiff has met her burden of demonstrating entitlement to $1.5 million in 

non-economic damages from Laielli.

B. Economic Damages

Plaintiff asks for economic damages of $10,835, primarily consisting of costs 

associated with the immediate aftermath of the rape and her eventual transfer to the 

University of North Carolina. Based on her declaration and the lack of opposition thereto 

from Laielli, Plaintiff has met her burden of demonstrating entitlement to $10,835 in 

economic damages from Laielli.

Case 3:15-cv-02018-CAB-DHB Document 128 Filed 09/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

15-CV-2018-CAB-DHB

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

C. Litigation Costs

Plaintiff asks for litigation costs from the filing of the original complaint through the 

entry of judgment against Laielli of $14,898, which equals approximately half of the total 

costs she incurred over that period. Plaintiff’s counsel breaks down these costs in her 

declaration in support of the instant motion.

State Court Filing Fee -- $435 x .5 = $217

Plaintiff does not explain why a state court filing fee is recoverable in this lawsuit 

that was originally filed in federal court. Accordingly, she has not met her burden of 

demonstrating entitlement to this cost.

Federal Court Filing Fee -- $400 x .5 = $200

Plaintiff is entitled to this cost.

Service of Complaints on Laielli -- $100.50

Half of this amount relates to service a state court complaint on Laielli. Plaintiff 

does not explain why she should recover the cost of service of a state court complaint in 

this lawsuit that was originally filed in federal court. Accordingly, Plaintiff is only entitled 

to the cost of service of the complaint in this case.

Deposition Costs Through September 30, 2016 -- $6,191 x .5 = $3095.50

Plaintiff includes receipts for these deposition transcripts with her motion. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff has demonstrated entitlement to these costs.

Expert Costs Through September 30, 2016 -- $22,091.24 x .5 = $11,045.62

Plaintiff seeks costs related to her experts Wendy Murphy and Ruth Hinzman. 

Plaintiff retained Murphy to testify about whether USD’s policies complied with Title IX, 

and she retained Hinzman to testify about proper procedures for responding to a sexual 

assault claim. [Doc. No. 86-2 at 6-7.] Plaintiff does not explain how these experts, whose 

proposed testimony appears to concern only USD’s response to Plaintiff’s rape claim, are 

relevant or necessary to her claims against Laielli. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not satisfied 

her burden of demonstrating entitlement to these costs from Laielli.

Case 3:15-cv-02018-CAB-DHB Document 128 Filed 09/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

15-CV-2018-CAB-DHB

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

Service of Discovery and Motions on Laielli -- $240

In light of Laielli’s lack of participation in this case and change of address without 

notification to the Court, Plaintiff is entitled to recover costs incurred attempting to 

personally serve Laielli with various discovery motions.

D. Attorney’s Fees

Plaintiff is entitled to her attorney’s fees for her claims under California Civil Code 

sections 51.7, 52.1, and 52.4. She asks for half of her attorney’s fees through September 

30, 2016, along with fees related to the instant motion, and the $5,985 the Court previously 

awarded in its judgment order against Laielli, for a total of $151,515. Because the $5,985 

is presumably included in the pre-September 30, 2016 fees, the Court declines to add that 

amount to the requested fee award. Otherwise, the Court finds Plaintiff’s fee request 

reasonable and therefore will include $145,530 for attorney’s fees in the judgment amount.

E. Punitive Damages

Plaintiff seeks punitive damages but does not propose an amount or make any 

argument as to how the Court might determine a punitive damage amount. “When punitive 

damages are sought by default judgment, the court must have independent evidence to 

support the award because punitive-damages-worthy conduct alleged in a complaint is not 

regarded as admitted by default.” Alutiiq Int'l Sols., LLC v. OIC Marianas Ins. Corp., 149 

F. Supp. 3d 1208, 1215 (D. Nev. 2016). When awarding punitive damages, “[t]he factors 

to be considered are (1) the nature of the defendants’ acts; (2) the amount of compensatory 

damages awarded; and (3) the wealth of the defendants.” Prof'l Seminar Consultants, Inc. 

v. Sino Am. Tech. Exch. Council, Inc., 727 F.2d 1470, 1473 (9th Cir. 1984). “In 

determining whether punitive damages are appropriate, the Court cannot make a fully 

informed determination of whether an award of punitive damages is excessive unless the 

record contains evidence of a defendant’s financial condition.” Brantley v. Boyd, No. C 

07-6139 MMC, 2013 WL 3766911, at *9 (N.D. Cal. July 16, 2013) (declining to award 

punitive damages because the record did not include evidence regarding the defendant’s 

wealth). Here, Plaintiff offers no evidence of Laielli’s financial condition, but admits that 

Case 3:15-cv-02018-CAB-DHB Document 128 Filed 09/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

15-CV-2018-CAB-DHB

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

Laielli is a student. [Doc. No. 115-1 at 5.] Because the record lacks evidence of Laielli’s 

net worth or wealth, the Court declines to award punitive damages.

III. Disposition

In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for a judgment amount against Laielli is 

GRANTED. It is hereby ORDERED that JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Plaintiff 

Nicole Ramser and against Defendant Ricky Laielli in the amount of $1,659,950.75. The 

Clerk of Court is instructed to CLOSE this case.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 20, 2017

Case 3:15-cv-02018-CAB-DHB Document 128 Filed 09/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6