Source: https://trellis.law/ca/motion-type/special-damages-261
Timestamp: 2020-07-10 21:20:30
Document Index: 13950406

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3333', '§ 888', '§ 437', '§ 430', '§ 3856', '§ 1942']

The general rule of damages in tort is that the injured party may recover for all detriment caused whether it could have been anticipated or not. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 3333; Hunt Bros. Co. v. San Lorenzo etc. Co. [(1906)] 150 Cal. 51, 56.) The recoverable damages include “special” or “general” damages. (Beeman v. Burling (1990) 216 Cal.App.3d 1586, 1601.)
“General” damages are those that necessarily result from the act complained, and may be proved under the ad damnum clause or general allegation of damage.” (Zvolanek v. Bodger Seeds, Ltd. (1935) 5 Cal.App.2d 106, 108; Treadwell v. Whittier (1889) 80 Cal. 574, 579.)
Unlike general damages, “special” damages are those losses that do not arise directly and inevitably from any similar breach of any similar agreement; instead, they are secondary or derivative losses arising from circumstances that are particular to the contract or to the parties. (Lewis Jorge Const. Management, Inc. v. Pomona Unified School District (2004) 34 Cal.4th 960, 968-969.)
“Special damages are those that are not deemed to be a necessary or usual result of the wrongful act.” (5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Pleading, § 888) (emphasis added); Emerald Bay Community Assn. v. Golden Eagle Ins. Corp. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1078, 1095.) “A defendant cannot be presumed to be aware of the special damage resulting from his act” (Shook v. Pearson (1950) 99 Cal.App.2d 348, 351.)
To prevent a surprise on the defendant, special damages are recoverable if the special or particular circumstances from which they arise were actually communicated to or known by the breaching party (a subjective test) or were matters of which the breaching party should have been aware at the time of contracting (an objective test). (Lewis Jorge Const. Management, Inc. v. Pomona Unified School District (2004) 34 Cal.4th 969.)
“It is the general rule that the plaintiff must state in his complaint the particular damage which he has sustained, or he will not be permitted to give evidence of it.” (Skaggs v. Wiley, 108 Cal.App. 429, 434, 292 P. 132, 134; Peabody v. Barham, 52 Cal.App.2d 581, 585, 126 P.2d 668; Lejeune v. General Petroleum Co., 128 Cal.App. 404, 418-419, 18 P.2d 429.) A general allegation of the loss of a prospective employment, sale, or profit will not suffice. (Pridonoff v. Balokovich (1951) 36 Cal.2d 788, 791–92.)
When a statement of damages is required but not served, the underlying entry of default is invalid and is subject to set-aside. (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1521.) To be proper, a statement of damages must include a “breakdown between general and special damages as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 425.11” because “such information aids a defendant in evaluating the validity of plaintiff’s claims with regard to their provability.” (Beeman v. Burling (1990) 216 Cal.App.3d 1586, 1599; Jones v. Interstate Recovery Service (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 925, 929.)
In other words, “[t]he facts as to special damages must be stated with particularity. The amount of such damages must be stated with particularity. The amount of such damages must be given, and the means of occasioning them must be set forth.” (Shook v. Pearson (1950) 99 Cal.App.3d 348, 352.)
“[T]he nature of the contract or the circumstances in which it is made may compel the inference that the defendant should have contemplated the fact that such a loss would be ‘the probable result’ of the defendant’s breach.” (Ash v. North American Title Company (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1269-1270.) “Special damages for breach of contract are limited to losses that were either actually foreseen or were ‘reasonably foreseeable’ when the contract was formed.” (Ash v. North American Title Company (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1270.)
“The existing rule requires only reason to foresee, not actual foresight.” (Brandon & Tibbs v. George Kevorkian Accountancy Corp. (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 442, 458.) “It does not require that the defendant should have had the resulting injury actually in contemplation or should have promised either impliedly or expressly to pay therefor in case of breach.” (Id.)
“Although foreseeability is most often a question of fact for the jury, when there is no room for a reasonable difference of opinion it may be decided as a question of law.” (Hedlund v. Super. Ct. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 695, 705.) “The court will determine what risks were foreseen or foreseeable when the contract was made by viewing the matter in the light of common sense; and the courts will consider the nature and purpose of the contract, and the surrounding circumstances known by the parties to exist at the time, as well as what the breaching party may reasonably be supposed to have assumed consciously.” (Ash v. North American Title Company (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1270).
Useful Rulings on Special Damages
RAE'VEN A'LYIA KELLY ET AL VS PHYLLIS E LARRYMORE-KELLY ET A
By way of background, plaintiffs previously submitted a default prove-up package. The court found the factual showing to be deficient given the amount of money plaintiffs were seeking for emotional distress and defamation. Rather, than opt for a live prove-up hearing, plaintiffs’ counsel decided to refile the prove-up package. In connection with the default package submitted to the court for he...
..$767,611.00 in damages for the conversion claim against both Defendants. Plaintiff Kelly also seeks $275,000 from each Defendant, consisting of $25,000.00 in emotional distress damages and $250,000.00 for injury to reputation, for a total of $550,000.00 on her defamation claim. Plaintiff Dinwoodie seeks $262,500.00 from each Defendant, consisting of $12,500.00 for emotional distress and $250,0...
Connecticut General Life Insurance Company vs. 7510 Hazard LLC [E-FILE]
TENTATIVE RULING: The Motion of Connecticut General Life Insurance Company to Strike Evidence of 7510 Hazard LLC's Lost Profits is DENIED. As the Court previously ruled, this motion is not a motion in limine. CGLIC now moves to strike evidence of lost profits. Under CCP section 437, "[t]he grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of wh...
..o a claim for damages; however, such subsection is limited to punitive damages. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(f); see also DeCastro West Chodorow & Burns, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 410.) Under CCP section 473c(t), a party "may move for summary adjudication of a legal issue or a claim for damages other than punitive damages that does not completely dispose of a cause of action" i...
VIOLA INC ET AL VS THE TRIBE COMPANIES LLC ET AL
Defendants The Tribe Companies, LLC, Corey Barnette, Kyle Doman, and Gregory Malik Burnett’s Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED as to the Third Cause of Action for Common Law Unfair Competition, and OVERRULED as to all other causes of action. DEMURRER A demurrer should be sustained only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (Code Civ. Pro., §§ 430.30...
..complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.” (Id. at p. 318; see also Hahn. v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747 (“A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.”)) “In determining whether the complai...
HANNAH JASPARD, DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF PIERRE'S EURO BREAD INC. VS. MOREAU
1.DEMURRER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT 2.MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT As set forth more fully below, the Court Sustains in part, and Overrules in part, Defendant P. Moreau, Defendant Monte Carlo Baking Inc., and Defendant Decobaking Inc.’s Demurrer to the Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. The Court Grants in part, and deems Moot in part, Defendants’ Motion to strike. Plaintiff shall file and...
... (See Kelly v. General Telephone Co. (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 278, 285; Uhrich v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 598, 605; Small v. Fritz Companies, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 167, 184; Philipson & Simon v. Gulsvig (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 347, 362). The cause of action is not well-plead under the heightened standards for pleading fraud. Such a claim cannot be stated with general or con...
Fernando Mauricio Jimenez Varillas v. Abel Julian Sanchez, Jr.
This is a negligence action arising from a collision between a car and a motorcycle.5 According to the allegations in the complaint, plaintiff Fernando Mauricio Jimenez Varillas (“Plaintiff”) and defendant Abel Julian Sanchez, Jr. (“Defendant”) collided while traveling on northbound Highway 101 on the morning of September 20, 2016. Plaintiff was riding his motorcycle when Defendant struck him with...
..for general damages…” on the basis Plaintiff is precluded under Civil Code section 3333.4 from recovering general damages as an uninsured rider. (Not. at p. 1:22–23.) For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion is DENIED. First and foremost, Defendant does not seek summary adjudication of a statutorily- authorized matter. Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f)(1) authorizes summa...
JANIE COHEN VS. FORWARD STUDIO CITY, INC.
Cohen v Forward Studio City, Inc. MOTION TO STRIKE & MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Calendar: 9 Case No: EC065444 Date: 5/11/17 MP: Defendants, Mohammed Ghazi and M. Ghazi Corp. Defendant, Forward Studio City Inc. RP: Plaintiff, Janie Cohen ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT: The Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Plaintiff when they provided real estate services to the Plaintiff in the sale o...
..: 1) the motion to strike that was filed by the Defendants, Mohammed Ghazi and M. Ghazi Corp.; and 2) the motion to strike and the motion for sanctions that were filed by the Defendant, Forward Studio. 1. Defendant, Forward Studio The Defendant filed two motions to request that 1) the Court strike the claim for punitive damages in the First Amended Complaint and 2) impose monetary sanctions...
Recent Rulings on Special Damages
Kevin Denoce (27)
Michael P. Linfield (106)
Los Angeles County, CA (457)
Ventura County, CA (52)
After the payment of such expenses and attorney’s fee the court shall, on application of the employer, allow as a first lien against the amount of such judgment for damages, the amount of the employer’s expenditure for compensation together with any amounts to which he may be entitled as special damages under Section 3852.” (Lab. Code, § 3856.)
(complaint that requested unspecified general and special damages in addition to $100,000 of punitive damages does not fulfill the function of a statement of damages as it did not give notice before the clerk’s default of the total amount of damages sought. ) Id at p. 1347. See also, Ely v.
KAREN SMITH VS BENTE BERMAN, M.D., INC.
Third, Plaintiff’s request for damages has several defects: (1) Plaintiffs’ emotional distress damage is counted twice in general and special damages and must only be requested as general damage; (2) there is no evidence to support emotional distress damage of $45,000 (Kim v.
JANE DOE VS JASON GRANGER
Subdivision (b) of Civil Code section 1708.5 makes “[a] person who commits a sexual battery upon another [] liable to that person for damages, including, but not limited to, general damages, special damages, and punitive damages.”
WILLIAM S HART UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT VS SPENCER RYAN SI
LEGAL STANDARD California Labor Code section 3860, subdivision (b) states the following: “[e]xcept as provided in Section 3859, the entire amount of such settlement, with or without suit, is subject to the employer’s full claim for reimbursement for compensation he has paid or become obligated to pay and any special damages to which he may be entitled under [s]ection 3852, together with expenses and attorney fees, if any, subject to the limitations in this section set forth.”
Seventh Cause of Action, Defamation: GRANTED The elements for a cause of action for defamation are: 1) intentional publication; 2) of statement of fact; 3) that is false; 4) defamatory; 5) unprivileged; and 6) has a natural tendency to injure or that causes special damages.
LISA HINES, ET AL. VS SURFACES U.S.A., ET AL.
Plaintiffs seek: (1) at least $52,000 on the first cause of action, (2) not less than $500,000 for general and special damages on the second cause of action, (3) not less than $500,000 for general and special damages on the third cause of action, (4) general and special damages of $52,000 and prejudgment and post judgment interests, and treble damages up to $10,000 for the fourth cause of action, and (5) restitution not less than $52,000 on the fifth cause of action.
COLE MCKEEVER ET AL VS DONALD RAY WILLIAMS ET AL
The Court finds the gross settlement to be reasonable considering Claimant has not sustained special damages. $170,371.27, or 25% of the gross settlement is to pay for attorney’s fees, which is reasonable. $2,530.54 of the gross settlement is to pay for costs. The costs are adequately explained.
GILLIAN BURNS, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS JOHN OWENS, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.
Andrieux: $63,650.00 in damages ($13,650 in special damages and $50,000 in general damages), and $510.50 in costs. Giordano: $50,000.00 in damages ($0 in special damages and $50,000 in general damages) and $510.50 in costs. DATED: July 2, 2020 ________________________________ Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court
In sum, the Court finds Plaintiffs have settled one claim with approximately $2,600 in special damages and the other with approximately $400 in special damages for $5,000 each. The court finds each settlement was entered into in good faith. Moving Party has agreed to pay a substantial amount of money in excess of Plaintiff’s special damages in dispute here.
NASHEKA SIDDALL VS ADVANTAGE REAL ESTATE & MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC., ET AL.
Under Civil Code § 1942.5 (b): “(b)(1) A landlord who violates this section is liable to the tenant or lessee for the actual damages sustained by the tenant or lessee and special damages of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) and not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000). (2) The prevailing party shall be entitled to recovery of reasonable attorney's fees and costs of the suit in an amount fixed by the court.”
Plaintiff alleges causes of action for negligence and medical negligence, and seeks to recover general damages, special damages, interest on economic damages, and costs of suit. II.
ASIANA CAPITAL, INC. VS DAVID DWECK
ANALYSIS: The request for entry of default judgment is GRANTED as indicated below: Default Judgment Category Amount Requested Amount Granted Demand of Complaint $30,912.07 $30,912.07 General Damages $0.00 $0.00 Special Damages $0.00 $0.00 Interest $3,383.23 $3,383.23 Costs $577.70 $577.70 Attorney's fees $1,317.36 $1,317.36 TOTAL $36,190.36 $36,190.36
With respect to the warranty breaches, defendants argue that because damages do not necessarily flow from such breaches EHS must specifically plead facts showing special damages. See, Comstock v. Coronet Heating Supply Co. (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 600, 603. Defendants say it is "not clear at all" how alleged accidental use of a deceased physician's electronic signature or lack of a medical director resulted in damages to EHS. Reply, p. 7.
CREATIVE CIRCLE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS BEAUTYCON MEDIA, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION
ANALYSIS: The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for Entry of Default Judgement as follows: Default Judgment Category Amount Requested Amount Granted Demand of Complaint $57,436.53 $57,436.53 General Damages $0.00 $0.00 Special Damages $0.00 $0.00 Interest $3,932.50 $3,932.50 Costs $498.65 $498.65 Attorney's fees $0.00 $0.00 $61,867.68 $61,867.68
The court further explained, “ ‘The distinction between general and special damages forms the basis of an important principle of pleading, that the defendant is entitled to notice of what damages are to be claimed at the trial, and should be given such notice in the complaint.’ [Citations.]” (Ibid., emphasis in original.)
CHIMNEY HILL PROPERTIES, LTD., A TEXAS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL. VS OCTAVIAN INVES, S.A. A LUXEMBOURG SOCIETE ANONYME, ET AL.
ANALYSIS: Plaintiff’s request for default judgment is GRANTED, as follows: Default Judgment Category Amount Requested Amount Granted Demand of Complaint $45,200,000.00 $45,200,000.00 General Damages $0.00 $0.00 Special Damages $0.00 $0.00 Interest $6,067,945.21 $6,067,945.21 Costs $0.00 $0.00 Attorney's fees $0.00 $0.00 $51,267,945.21 $51,267,945.21
Beats argues that Monster only designated Jim Crossland as an expert witness to testify as to six topics, none of which were special damages/lost profits or reliance damages.
NOUNE SEROBIAN VS JAOSN H COHEN ET AL
Fourth, Plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence to prove up damages ($18,000 in special damages and $30,000 in general damages). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for default judgment is denied without prejudice. The Clerk will discuss with Plaintiff a schedule for resubmission of the default judgment package, if any. DATED: June 23, 2020 ________________________________ Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court
Additionally, this defamatory character is sufficiently apparent that, contrary to what Cudia argues, damages are presumed and special damages need not be established to sustain a prima facie showing at this juncture. And so here, contrary to Cudia’s assertion (made without citation to authority or reasoned explanation), the reviews are defamatory on their face and suffice to establish Plaintiffs’ prima facie showing without additional proof of special damages. Additionally, under these circumstances, Dr.