Brahms v. Wilk CA4/3
G060250
| Cal. Ct. App. | Sep 20, 2022Background
- Brahms sued Wilk for defamatory internet posts; Wilk was personally served March 24, 2020, but did not answer and default was entered June 15, 2020.
- Brahms sought nearly $4 million at default prove-up; court entered judgment for $3.9 million on January 12, 2021, including $1 million punitive damages.
- Wilk moved (March 12, 2021) to vacate the default and judgment under the court’s equitable powers, claiming a meritorious defense, satisfactory excuse for delay (including COVID-19 court closures and nonreceipt of a statement of damages), and diligence; alternatively he asked to strike punitive damages for lack of evidence of his net worth.
- The trial court denied the motion to vacate (April 16, 2021); Wilk appealed both the default judgment and the denial of equitable relief.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the default judgment as modified, finding plaintiff’s pleaded defamation elements were confessed by default and that proofs at the prove-up established a prima facie case for lost past and future income and emotional distress, but it struck and remanded the punitive damages award for lack of admissible evidence of Wilk’s financial condition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brahms) | Defendant's Argument (Wilk) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of default judgment on defamation liability | Complaint pleaded all elements of defamation; default admits those allegations | Defaulting defendant cannot now contest truth of allegations | Affirmed — default admitted the well-pleaded defamation elements; liability stands |
| Sufficiency of evidence for lost past and future income | Brahms presented declaration explaining lost income and bank statements; projection of future loss reasonable | Bank statements from MAE Capital not Brahms’ personal records; future projection speculative | Affirmed — prima facie evidence sufficient; reasonable inferences supported past and five‑year future loss |
| Sufficiency of emotional distress damages | Brahms detailed emotional impacts tied to the publications (Google prominence, family/social fallout, timing with mother’s death) | Damages excessive because postings were already online; lack of supporting witnesses | Affirmed — amount not so disproportionate to special damages as to shock the conscience |
| Sufficiency of evidence for punitive damages (proof of defendant’s net worth) | Punitive damages sought based on malice; plaintiff offered observations about Wilk’s assets | Evidence of Wilk’s wealth was hearsay/unsourced and not within declarant’s personal knowledge | Reversed as to punitive award — $1M punitive damages struck and remanded for new prove‑up limited to defendant’s financial condition |
| Motion to vacate default and judgment (equitable relief test: satisfactory excuse, meritorious defense, diligence) | Wilk alleged excusable delay (COVID confusion, nonreceipt of statement), had meritorious defenses, and acted to set aside judgment | Trial court findings that Wilk’s excuses lacked credibility; Wilk bore burden to prove all three prongs | Affirmed — abuse of discretion not shown; Wilk failed to meet burden (court credited credibility findings and found no satisfactory excuse) |
Key Cases Cited
- Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc., 201 Cal.App.4th 267 (2011) (default judgment treats well‑pleaded allegations as admitted and plaintiff need not reprove liability at prove‑up)
- Murray v. Tran, 55 Cal.App.5th 10 (2020) (defamation elements summarized)
- Uva v. Evans, 83 Cal.App.3d 356 (1978) (appellate review of damages in default judgment is narrowly circumscribed; intervene only if award shocks the conscience)
- Johnson v. Stanhiser, 72 Cal.App.4th 357 (1999) (proof at default prove‑up requires a prima facie case)
- Adams v. Murakami, 54 Cal.3d 105 (1991) (plaintiff bears burden to prove defendant’s financial condition for punitive damages review)
- Rappleyea v. Campbell, 8 Cal.4th 975 (1994) (equitable relief from default judgment available only in exceptional circumstances; three‑part test applies)