Fernandes v. Singh
C080264
| Cal. Ct. App. | Nov 2, 2017Background
- Fernandes sued Raj Singh, Kiran Rawat, and the Sita Ram Trust for wrongful eviction, conversion, breach of the warranty of habitability, and related claims after repeated unlawful detainer actions and an alleged fraudulent eviction.
- Trial court found Singh acted with oppression, fraud, or malice, engaged in a pattern of misconduct, and ordered compensatory damages of $87,894 and punitive damages of $350,000; it also awarded attorney fees and costs.
- The court ordered defendants to disclose financial condition for punitive-damages purposes; defendants failed to comply and offered no rebuttal evidence of net worth.
- Rawat (and the Trust) moved to vacate the judgment claiming lack of service and extrinsic fraud; the trial court discredited Rawat’s declarations, found she had appeared in the action, and denied the motion.
- On appeal, Rawat challenged service, punitive damages, and the punitive award as unsupported by financial evidence; Singh (pro se) challenged service, the punitive award, and attorney fees.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed: it upheld the denial of the motion to vacate, sustained the punitive-damages award (holding refusal to comply with discovery precluded challenging net-worth evidence), and affirmed fees and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of service / motion to vacate judgment | Fernandes relied on filed proof of service and record showing appearance | Rawat claimed she was never served, Oliver abandoned her, and her declarations rebut service presumption | Court upheld judgment; trial court credited record and disbelieved Rawat’s declarations, so service presumption stood; denial of vacatur not an abuse of discretion |
| Liability of Rawat and Trust for punitive damages | Fernandes argued Rawat/Trust ratified Singh’s conduct and participated in wrongful acts | Rawat argued lack of evidence she ratified Singh and insufficient reprehensibility | Court affirmed ratification and that conduct met reprehensibility factors; Rawat forfeited some arguments by not fairly stating facts and lacking transcript |
| Sufficiency of evidence of defendants’ financial condition for punitive award | Fernandes presented unrebutted property-search evidence; argued defendants disobeyed discovery order | Defendants argued plaintiff bore burden to prove net worth and punitive award excessive | Court held defendants’ failure to comply with the court order precluded them from challenging sufficiency of financial evidence; punitive award not facially excessive (ratio ~3.98:1) |
| Attorney fees and costs award | Fernandes sought fees; trial court found award reasonable | Singh argued fees excessive and challenged award | Court affirmed fee award; trial court did not abuse discretion and record description by Singh was inadequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Singh v. Lipworth, 227 Cal.App.4th 813 (Cal. Ct. App.) (discussing Singh's vexatious-litigant history and appellate expectations for proffered briefs)
- Roby v. McKesson Corp., 47 Cal.4th 686 (Cal. 2009) (guideposts for punitive-damages reprehensibility analysis)
- Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co., 63 Cal.4th 363 (Cal. 2016) (single-digit multipliers normally permissible for punitive damages)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2003) (constitutional considerations and caution against excessive punitive-compensatory ratios)
- Hale v. Morgan, 22 Cal.3d 388 (Cal. 1978) (fact‑driven due process limits on certain statutory penalties)
- Corenbaum v. Lampkin, 215 Cal.App.4th 1308 (Cal. Ct. App.) (failure to comply with court order to disclose financial condition limits appellate challenge to punitive award)
- Adams v. Murakami, 54 Cal.3d 105 (Cal. 1991) (plaintiff’s burden to prove defendant’s financial condition for punitive damages)
- Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon, 3 Cal.3d 875 (Cal. 1971) (parties must state facts fairly on appeal; failure may forfeit issues)