Ellen Rozario v. Kim Richards
687 F. App'x 568
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Ellen Rozario obtained a default judgment against Kim Richards after a dog attack; Rozario appealed the district court’s rulings and damages calculation.
- The district court awarded Rozario emotional distress damages of $4,000 but denied punitive damages.
- Rozario submitted an uncontested declaration describing the seriousness and continuing impact of her injuries; the district court relied largely on older dog-bite awards to set damages and suggested need for corroborating medical evidence.
- The district court held Richards liable but found Rozario did not prove entitlement to punitive damages because she failed to show Richards’ financial condition.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed liability and punitive-damages rulings de novo and the district court’s damages calculation for clear error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress | Richards knowingly encouraged Rozario to pet a dangerous dog and intended to cause severe distress | Richards’ conduct was not sufficiently outrageous or intentional to support IIED | Reversed: allegations show outrageous conduct and liability under IIED was properly pleaded |
| Adequacy of emotional distress damages award | $4,000 is insufficient given Rozario’s uncontested testimony about severity and continuing impact | District court relied on historical comparators to justify a low award | Reversed: award was based on incomplete/arbitrary analysis and appears unusually low; remanded for recalculation |
| Use of plaintiff’s uncorroborated testimony for emotional distress | Plaintiff’s subjective account is sufficient where circumstances make serious emotional harm obvious | District court implied need for corroborating medical evidence | Reversed: subjective testimony can suffice; if court rejects it, it must explain adverse credibility finding |
| Punitive damages entitlement | Plaintiff sought punitive damages given defendant’s knowledge of the dog’s propensities | No evidence presented of Richards’ financial condition to support punitive award | Affirmed: plaintiff failed to prove defendant’s financial condition; punitive damages denied |
Key Cases Cited
- DIRECTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh, 503 F.3d 847 (9th Cir. 2007) (default-judgment factual allegations taken as true)
- Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 980 F.2d 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (default-judgment pleading rule principles)
- Geddes v. United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d 557 (9th Cir. 1977) (damages allegations not taken as true in default judgment review)
- Trustees of the Constr. Indus. & Laborers Health & Welfare Trust v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 578 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2009) (de novo review of liability questions)
- NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606 (9th Cir. 2016) (district court damages computation reviewed for clear error)
- Plotnik v. Meihaus, 146 Cal. Rptr. 3d 585 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (no fixed standard for emotional distress damages; reasonableness required)
- Kardly v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 255 Cal. Rptr. 40 (Ct. App. 1989) (severity of distress tied to defendant’s conduct; damages are factual)
- Adams v. Murakami, 813 P.2d 1348 (Cal. 1991) (plaintiff bears burden to prove defendant’s financial condition to support punitive damages)
- Green v. Laibco, LLC, 121 Cal. Rptr. 3d 415 (Ct. App. 2011) (where record is devoid of financial evidence and deficiency may be due to defendant, plaintiff may still obtain punitive damages if she shows efforts to obtain information)