Candoleta v. Flores

Opinion

•

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

TRICIA TORRES CANDOLETA, 8 CIVIL CASE NO. CV0094-14 9 Plaintiff,

10 vs. DECISION AND ORDER 11 STEPHANIE G. FLORES, 12 Defendant. 13

15 INTRODUCTION

16 This matter came before the Honorable James L. Cant o II on Plaintiff Tricia Torres

17 Candoleta's motion for default judgment, filed on April 15, 2014. Defendant Stephanie G.

18 Flores's default was entered on April 7, 2014, for failure to plead or otherwise defend in the case. Oral arguments were heard on May 14, 2014. Attorney Wayson Wong represented the 19

P laintiff, while Defendant was not present. Having considered the parties' briefs and the 20

21 applicable law, the Court now issues the following Decision and Order.

22 BACKGROUND

O n Janu ary 17, 201 4, Plaintiff Tricia Torres Candoleta filed a co mpl ai nt against 23

Defendant Stephanie G. F lores asserting the following seven claims : ( 1) Breach of Written 24

25 Contract; (2) Breach of Oral Contract; (3) Breach of Fiduciary Duties; (4) Fraud and/or Other

26 Deception ; ( 5) Negligence ; (6) Gross Negligence ; a nd (7) E xempl ary or Punitive Damages.

(Co mpl ., 1-8, Jan. 17, 2014). On February 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint 27

Page 1 of 8 addin g the claim of Deceptive Trade Practices to the claims in the first complaint. (F i rst Am.

Compl., 9, Feb. 28, 2014).

Plaintiff's cl ai ms ari se from an earl i er case, PR0136-06, in whi ch she reta ined the

services of Defendant. (Decl. of Tricia Torres Candoleta, 1-2, Apr. 14, 2014). Plaintiff

specifically alleges that Defendant failed to properly represent Plaintiff in the matters regarding

PR0136-06. Id. at 2-3. Plaintiff argues that the adverse consequences for which she claims 7 relief are the result of Defendant's failure to adequately represent her. Id. at 8-9.

8 On April 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default stating that Defendant had

9 not filed an answer or otherwise defended against the first amended complaint within the time

10 required by the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure. (Requ est fo r E n t ry o f Defau l t , 1 -3 , Apr. 2 ,

11 2014). On April 7, 2014, the Superior Court of Guam entered Defendant's default for failure to

12 plead or otherwise respond to the complaint against her. (Entry of Default, Apr. 7, 2014).

13 On April 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment. Plaintiff claims that

14 Defendant's fraud, deceptive practices, gross negligence and/or negligence caused Plaintiff to 15 suffer tremendous damages, and requests the court to provide justice. (Mem. P. & A. of Mot.

16 Def. Judg., 1, Apr. 15, 2014).

17 Plaintiff claims $107,500.00 in damages for lost equity in her home; $135,100.00 in

18 damages for at t o r ney' s fees; an d $101,328.00 in damages for lost earni ngs and/or earni ng

19 capaci t y. (Decl . of T ric ia Torres Candoleta, 9, Apr. 14, 2014). P l ai nt i ff al so requests

20 $100,000.00 in da ma ge s for the loss of he r ma rria ge relationship and probable lo ss of he r 21 marri age, and $ 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 i n damages fo r t he l o ss o f her repu t at i o n amo ng her fami l y and t he

22 co mmu ni t y, the embarrassment and hu mi l i at i o n she suffe red, mental anguish, anxi et y, and

23 emotional distress. Id. Addi t i o nal l y, i n t he i nt erest o f fai r ness and j u st i ce, P l ai nt i ff asks t he

24 Co u rt t o grant exempl ary and pu ni t i ve damages in the amount of $500,000.00, or alternatively,

25 treble damages, which would be three times the amount of Plaintiff's actual economic dama ges.

26 Id. at 1 3 . In t o t al , P l ai nt i ff requ est s ei t her $ 1 ,0 4 3 ,9 2 8 .0 0 (i ncl u di ng pu ni t i ve and exempl ary

27 damages), or $1,243,928.00 (including treble damages). Id.

Page 2 of 8 •

1 DISCUSSION

2 Under Guam law, when a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought

3 has failed to plead or otherwise defend against the Plaintiffs claim, a court may enter a

4 judgment by default against the party. Guam R . Ci v. P . 55(b)(2 ) (2010). "As a general rule,

5 when a party fails to file an answer and a default judgment is entered, only the factual

6 allegations of the complaint as to liability are deemed admitted and not the allegations relating

7 to da mages." Mariano v . Surla, 2010 Guam 2 ¶ 39 (citing Pope v. United States , 323 U. S. 1, 12

8 (194 4)). Thus a plaintiff must still prove all damages sought in the complaint . Id. "[E ] ven

9 upon default, a court may not rubber-stamp the non - defaulting party's damages calculation, but

10 rather must ensure that there is a basis for the damages that are sought. " Id. at ¶ 41 (citations

11 omitted).

12 This general rule articulated in Mariano v. Surla is aligned with the instructions set forth in

13 Rule 55 ( b)(2) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure . Guam R . Civ. P. 55(b)(2) (2010). The

14 relevant portion of the statute reads as follows:

15 If, in order to enable the court to enter judgment or to carry it into effect, it is 16 necessary to take an account or to determine the amount of damages or to establish the truth of any averment by evidence or to make an investigation of any 17 other matter, the court may conduct such hearings or order such references as it deems necessary and proper, and shall accord a right of trial by jury to the parties 18 when and as required by any statute. 19 Id. 20 Al t ho u gh a trial court has the discretion to ho ld a hearing to determine the proper 21 amount of damages to be awarded to a plaintiff against a defaulting part y under Gu am l aw, t hi s 22 discretion " does not extend to the entry of a default judgment whe re the damages are not 23 liquidated or articulated with certainty. " Surla, 2010 Gua m 2 ¶ 42 (quoting Multiple Resort 24 Own ersh i p P l a n , Inc. v. Design-Build-Manage, Inc., 45 P.3d 647, 65 5 (Wyo . 2002)). The 25 Su preme Co u rt o f Gu am has explained the concept of "unliquidated" damages, in the context of 26 an entry of default judgment, as follows: 27 To prove damages, a party must show more than mere nominal damages. The 28 requirement of Rule 55 ( b)(2) . . . of a hearing with respect to damages whi ch are

Page 3 of 8 not liquidated is consistent with the rule of those cases. The default permitted by a defendant does not concede the amount demanded for unliquidated damages.... [D]amages are not liquidated if the ascertainment of their exact sum requires the taking of testimony to ascertain facts upon whi ch to base a value judgment. Unliquidated cl ai ms include dama ges for pers onal injuries, lost profits, consequential damages, exemplary or punitive damages, and reasonable attorney's fees.

Surla, 2010 Guam 2 ¶ 42 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

In this case, Plaintiff claims the following amounts of damages: (1) $107,500.00 for the

loss in equity in her home; (2) $135,100.00 in attorney's fees and costs expended in an attempt

to set aside an alleged improper order and defending against the lawsuit that it generated; (3) $101,328.00 in lost profits; (4 ) $100,000.00 for the lo ss of her marriage relationship; (5) 10 $ 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 fo r t he l o ss o f her go o d repu t at i o n, great embarrassment and hu mi l i at i o n, ment al 11 anguish, anxi et y, and emotional distress; (6 ) at least $500,000.00 in exemplary o r pu n i t i ve 12 damages; and (7) treble damages. (Mem. P. & A. of Mot. Def. Judg., 9-15, Apr. 15, 2014). 13 a. Cla ims (1) - (3) 14 In support of claims (1) through (3), Plaintiff submits a copy of the Probate Court's 15 April 8, 20 14 order, confirming the sale of her ho me for $238,000.00. (Decl. Tricia T. 16 Candoleta, Exhibit 4, Apr. 15, 2014). Beca use the remaining mortgage of approximately 17 $130,500.00 was paid off during the sale, Plaintiff lost $107,500.00 of equity on the home. 18 (Mem. P. & A. of Mot. Def. Judg., 8, Apr. 15, 2014). In addition, Plaintiff submitted a letter 19 detailing the client-lawyer relationship between Plaintiff and her counsel, and the $135,100.00 20 owed to Plaintiff's counsel as a result of Defendant's action and/or inaction. (Decl. Tricia T. 21 Candoleta, Exhibit 5, Apr. 15, 2014). Furthermore, Plaintiff, who was imprisoned for 16 22 months, failed to generate any income for 16 months. Id. at 9. She was maki ng $ 6 ,3 3 3 .0 0 per 23 month before the imprisonment and lost a total of approximately $101,328.00 in earnings. Id. 24 Therefore, the Court gra nts Plaintiff $107,500.00 for the lo ss o f equity in her ho me, 25 $135,100.00 for attorney's fees, and $101,328.00 in lost profits, for a total of $343,928.00. 26 b. Cl ai m (4 ) 27 Wi t h respect to cla im (4), P l ai nt i ff mu st prove that Defendant ' s actions were the 28 pro xi mat e cau se o f t he l o ss o f her mari t al rel at i o nshi p. See 2 0 GCA § 2 2 2 5 (2 0 0 5 ). Lo ss o f

Page 4 of 8 marital relationship i s mo re bro adl y charact eri zed as a l o ss o f co nso rt i u m, defi ned as "t he l o ss

of certain rights and privileges inherent in the marital relationship, including companionship, emotional support, love, and sexual relations." Zwicker v. Altamont E merg en cy Room

Physicians Med. Grp ., 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 912, 915 (Ct.App. 2002). In su ppo rt o f her cl ai m fo r

5 $100,000.00 for lo ss of ma rita l relationship, Plaintiff states that "[s ]he lost her marriage

6 relationship (and probably will lose her marriage) because of all of the stress and strain these 7 mat t ers pl aced on it , especially because of her imprisonment, which was a direct result of the

8 improper November 5, 2010 order." (Decl . Tri ci a T. Cando l et a, 9 , Apr. 15, 2014). Ho wever,

9 she al so ackno wl edges t hat Defendant ' s actions are not the only cause of the loss of her marital

10 relationship. Id . Absent further evidence, the Court is unable to find that Plaintiff's declaration

11 alone adequately shows that Defendant 's action was the proximate cause of her harm. See 20

12 GCA § 2225 (2013).

13 c. Claim (5)

14 In claim (5), Plaintiff seeks $100,000.00 for the lo ss o f her good reputation,

15 embarrassment and humiliation , mental anguish, anxiety, and emotional distress

16 "Damages fo r l o s s o f repu t at i o n seek to make one whole for loss of the ability to earn

17 wages, borrow money, and to enjoy life as fully as before the injury." Resolution Trust Corp. v.

18 Miramon, 935 F.Supp. 838, 844 (E.D. La. 1996). Courts have often conflated emotional harm

19 such as emb arrassment, humiliation, mental anguish , anxi et y, and em o t i o nal di st ress. S ee i d .

20 ("Damages for embarrassment compensate for infliction of emotional harm- mental anguish."). 21 To prove emotional distress, the Plaintiff must show "[a] specific discernable injury to [her] 22 emotional state, proven with evidence regarding the nature and extent of the harm ... [h]urt

23 feelings, anger and frustration are part of life, and [are] not the types of harm that could support

24 a mental anguish award." Hines v. Grand Casino of Louisiana, L.L.C., 358 F.Supp.2d 533, 549

25 (ci t i n g B ra d y v. Fort Bend County, 145 F.3d 691, 718 (5 t h Ci r. 1998)). "While pl a intiffs

26 testimony alone may support an emotional distress award, that testimony must consist of more

27 than vague and conclusory allegations." Id .

Page 5 of 8 In support o f her cl ai m for $100,000.00 for the lo ss o f her good reputation,

embarrassment and humiliation, mental anguish, anxiety, and emotional distress, Plaintiff offers

no evidence apart from her conclusory statement that "[b]ecause of such imprisonment, she lost

her go o d repu t at i o n amo ng her fami l y members and mu ch o f t he co mmu ni t y, she su ffered great

embarrassment and humiliation, mental anguish, anxiety and emotional distress." (Decl. Tricia

T. Cando l et a, 9 , Apr. 15, 2014). Ul t i mat el y, P l ai nt i ff fai l ed t o demo nst rat e he r los s of the

ability to earn wages, borrow money, and to enjoy life as fully as before the injury. Resolution

Trust Corp., 935 F.Supp. at 844. Furthermore, Plaintiff's allegations are vague and conclusory,

9 and fail to adequately show a specific discernible injury to her emotional state. Hines, 358 10 F.Supp.2d at 549. For these reasons, Plaintiff is not entitled to a damage award for the loss of

11 her good reputation, great embarrassment and humiliation, mental angu i sh, anxi et y, and

12 emotional distress.

13 d. Cla im (6 )

14 In cla im (6), Plaintiff seeks an exempl ary o r punitive dam age award of at least

15 $500,000.00.

16 Under Guam law, exemplary damages may be awarded in the following circumstances:

17 In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where the 18 defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, express or implied, the pl ai nt i ff, i n addi t i o n t o t he act u al damages, may reco ver damages fo r t he sake o f 19 example and by way of punishing the defendant. 20 20 GCA § 2120 (2013).

21 The Supreme Court of Guam has failed to make a clear distinction between exemplary 22 and punitiv e damages. See Fleming v. Quigley, 2 0 0 3 Gu am 4 ¶ 3 2 ; P a rk v. M o b i l Oi l Gu a m,

23 Inc., 2004 Guam 20 ¶ 56. However, the Supreme Court of Guam did reiterate that which is

24 clear from the statute - the awarding of exemplary, or punitive, dama ges is within the trial 25 court's discretion. Id.; 20 GCA § 2120 (2013). 26 Unlike compensatory damages which "are intended to redress the concrete loss that the

27 plaintiff has suffered by reason of the defendant's wrongful conduct ... punitive damages serve

28 a broader function; they are aimed at deterrence and retribution." S t a t e F a rm M u t . Au t o . In s.

Page 6 of 8 I Co . v. Ca mp b el l , 538 U.S. 408, 416 (2003). The U.S. Su preme Co u rt no t ed: "It should be

2 presu med a pl ai nt i ff has been made whole for hi s injuries by co mpensat o ry damages, so

3 punitive damages should o nl y be awarded i f t he defendant's culpability, after havi ng paid

4 compensatory damages, is so reprehensible as to warrant the imposition of further sanctions to

5 achi eve punishment or deterrence." Id. at 419 (citing BMW v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 575 (1996)).

6 In this case, Plaintiff seeks exemplary or punitive damages, in part, to recover damages in

7 the event Defendant files and completes bankruptcy proceedings. (Mem. P. & A. of Mot. Def.

8 Judg., 14, Apr. 15, 2014). Thu s her request is so that "she can be protected from such

9 bankru pt cy di scharge and event u al l y po t ent i al l y reco ver her act u al damages." Id. However, it

10 must be presumed that Plaintiff has been made whole for her injuries by compensatory damages.

11 Campbell, 5 3 8 U.S. at 4 1 9 . As punitive damage s are for deterrence and retribution, the Court

12 cannot grant punitive damages as a protective measure for Plaintiff, as so charact eri zed by

13 Plaintiff. Id. at 416. Furthermore, the Court finds that the disciplinary measures i mpo sed o n

14 Defendant in other proceedings adequately serve the purposes of retribution and deterrence.

15 (Decl. Tricia T. Candoleta, Exhibit 1, Apr. 15, 2014). F o r t hese reasons, the Cou rt in its

16 discretion finds that exemplary or punitive damage awards are not appropriate in this case. 2 0

17 GCA § 2120 (2013).

18 e. Cla im (7 )

19 Under Guam law, a consumer not represented by the Attorney General who prevails

20 may o bt ai n:

21 (a) The amount of actual, exemplary, and punitive damages found by the trier of 22 fact. If the trier of fact finds that the conduct of the party was committed knowingly and as a regular business practice of the party, the trier of fact may, 23 in addition, award not more than three (3) times the amount of actual damages. 24 5 GCA § 32112(a) (2013).

25 In support of her claim for treble damages, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant's practices

26 were "pro babl y" co mmi t t ed kno wi ngl y and as a regu l ar pract i ce. (Mem. P. & A. of Mot. Def.

27 Judg., 15, Apr. 15, 201 4). Plaintiff further co nt ends that Defendant committed the same

28 deceptive practices at least 10 times during the period in question and this current incident was

Page 7 of 8 the usual method Defendant used to "du pe" her clients. Id. Although Plaintiff provides

evidence that Defendant was disciplined numerous times for her misconduct, absent further

evidence, the Court finds Plaintiffs declaration alone is inadequate to show that Defendant's act i o n was co mmi t t ed kno wi ngl y and as a regu l ar bu si ness pract i ce. For this reason, the Court

in its discretion denies Plaintiff's request for treble damages. 5 GCA § 32112(a) (2013).

9 CO NCLUSI O N

10 Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff's motion for default judgment is GRANTED in part.

I1 Plaintiff is entitled to $107,500.00 for the loss of equity in her home, $135,100.00 for attorney's

12 fees, and $101,328.00 in lost profits, for a total of $343,928.00.

13 This matter is set for further proceedings on August 27, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. regarding the

14 submission of a proposed judgment.

17 SO ORDE RE D t hi s e P II day o f Au g u st , 2 0 1 4 .

20 N . J AM E S L . C AN T O II 21 Judge, Superior Court of Guam

26 SERVICE VIA COURT BOX I acknow ledge that a copy of the 27 origi nal hereto was placed in the c oy rt . bpx o f :

Page 8 of 8