Corrales-Gonzalez v. Speed Auto Wholesalers LLC

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8

Carmen Corrales-Gonzalez, ) No. CV-20-02023-PHX-SPL ) 9 ) 10 Plaintiff, ) ORDER vs. ) ) 11 ) Speed Auto Wholesalers LLC, et al., ) 12 ) 13 Defendants. ) ) 14 )

15 On September 8, 2022, this Court issued an Order (Doc. 93) granting Plaintiff 16 Carmen Corrales-Gonzalez’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 83). 17 Specifically, the Court entered default judgment against Defendant Raul Quintero as to 18 Plaintiff’s claim for violation of the Odometer Act, 49 U.S.C. § 32701, et seq. (Doc. 93 at 19 8–9). In doing so, the Court awarded Plaintiff $71,899.00 in actual damages, $3,467.50 in 20 reasonable attorneys’ fees, and $221.53 in costs. (Id.). 21 In a separate Order (Doc. 94) also filed on September 8, 2022, this Court vacated in 22 part its Order granting default judgment to the extent it awarded Plaintiff actual damages. 23 (Id. at 2–3). The Court reasoned that Plaintiff had failed to provide sufficient evidence to 24 support the requested damages amount. (Id. at 1). Given that the Court’s finding with 25 respect to Defendant Quintero’s liability, however, was not disturbed—and because 26 statutory damages are mandatory upon a finding of liability under the Odometer Act, see 27 49 U.S.C. § 32710(a)—this Court’s denial of damages with without prejudice and Plaintiff 28 was ordered to file supplemental briefing and supporting documentation sufficiently 1 demonstrating that the amount of actual damages sought—$23,963.00—was both 2 reasonable and supported by evidence. (Id. at 2–3). On September 9, 2022, Plaintiff timely 3 filed such supplemental briefing and supporting documentation. (Doc. 95). The Court now 4 reviews Plaintiff’s filing and issues this Order as to the appropriate award of actual 5 damages in this case. 6 Plaintiff explains that the original requested amount of $23,963.00 in actual 7 damages, trebled to $71,889.00 per the statute, “came from the allegation in paragraph 83 8 of the Complaint, (Doc. 1) which was an estimation at the time of Plaintiff’s actual damages 9 made prior to hiring a valuation expert.” (Doc. 95 at 1). Plaintiff now requests actual 10 damages in the amount of $26,323.00. (Id.). Plaintiff supports the $26,323.00 figure with 11 a Valuation Report authored by Robert K. Isham, the Vice President of Collision Safety 12 Consultants of Arizona, LLC and the individual chosen by Plaintiff to serve as an expert 13 witness in this matter. (Doc. 95-1 at 2). Mr. Isham concluded that the Jeep’s value “was 14 reduced by 50% or half of the price paid ($33,450), a loss of $16,725.00.” (Id. at 55). 15 Plaintiff asserts that this amount is supported by the trade-in value of $15,000 that Lifted 16 Trucks gave to Maira Perez when she sold the Jeep to Lifted Trucks. (Doc. 95 at 2). In 17 addition to the $16,725.00 loss in value, Plaintiff also explains that the damages award 18 should include the amount he overpaid in sales tax ($1,403.63), the amount he overpaid in 19 finance charges or interest ($7,699.37), and the amount he paid for the Dealer Documentary 20 Fee ($495). These figures are supported by Mr. Isham’s Report and the other documentary 21 evidence submitted by Plaintiff. Adding everything together, Plaintiff now requests 22 $26,323.00 in actual damages, which is an increase of $2,360.00 from the figure requested 23 in Plaintiff’s original Motion for Default Judgment. 24 The Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently supported his actual damages request 25 with briefing and supporting documents showing that the damages figure is both reasonable 26 and supported by the evidence. That said, the Court will only award Plaintiff damages up 27 to the amount requested in the original Motion—$23,963.00—because Plaintiff should not 28 be rewarded for failing to adequately support his actual damages the first time around. 1 | Plaintiff had a duty to prove the damages sought in his Motion for Default Judgment. 2| Plaintiff made no effort to meet that duty and instead merely relied on the damages 3| “estimate” from his original Complaint. As a result, this Court was unable to carry out its 4| own duty to “ensure that the amount of damages is reasonable and demonstrated by the evidence.” See Curtis v. Illumination Arts, Inc., 33 F. Supp. 3d 1200, 1211 (W.D. Wash. 6| 2014) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(6); TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987)). This Court ordered Plaintiff to provide 8 | proof for his damages request so that this Court could carry out its own duty to determine 9 | the appropriate damages award in this case, not so that Plaintiff would have the opportunity 10 | to go back, consult his expert, and ask for more money the second time around. 11 Plaintiff shall be awarded $23,963.00 in actual damages. Under the Odometer Act, 12 | that amount is trebled for a final damages award of $71,889.00. See 49 U.S.C. § 32710(a) 13 | (“A person that violates this chapter . . . with intent to defraud, is liable for 3 times the actual damages or $10,000, whichever is greater.”’). 15 Accordingly, 16 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 83) is granted in part to the extent it seeks $71,889.00 in actual/statutory damages. Plaintiff shall be awarded $71,889.00 in actual damages pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 32710(a). 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court’s September 8, 2022 Order (Doc. 93) 20 | is reaffirmed and upheld in all other respects—namely, as it relates to this Court’s entry 21 | of default judgment in favor of Plaintiff against Defendant Quintero and as it relates to this 22 | Court’s findings with respect to the award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment against 24 | Defendant Quintero accordingly. 25 Dated this 13th day of September, 2022. 26 AG 27 United States District Madge 28