Fernandes v. Singh
16 Cal. App. 5th 932
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2017Background
- Fernandes sued Raj Singh and Kiran Rawat (individually and as trustees of the Sitaram Trust) for wrongful eviction, conversion, breach of warranty of habitability and related claims after repeated unlawful detainer filings and an alleged fraudulent eviction that left her locked out and deprived of personal property.
- Trial court found Singh engaged in a pattern of malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive conduct (including three baseless unlawful detainer actions and repeated rent demands) and awarded Fernandes $87,894 in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages; the court also ordered defendants to produce financial information for punitive-damage assessment.
- Defendants failed to comply with the discovery order to produce financial condition evidence; Fernandes submitted unrebutted evidence of significant real property holdings for Rawat and the Trust and could not fully identify Singh’s assets due to his common name.
- Rawat (later represented on appeal) moved to vacate the judgment asserting lack of service and extrinsic fraud, submitting declarations denying service and denying she retained prior counsel; the trial court discredited those declarations, found she had appeared (answer and discovery responses), and denied the motion.
- Both Rawat and Singh appealed; Rawat challenged service and punitive damages, Singh (pro se on appeal) challenged service, the punitive award (ratio), and attorney fees. The appellate court affirmed the judgment in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Fernandes' Argument | Defendant(s)' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of service / motion to vacate | Proof of service, defendant appeared (answer, discovery) so service was proper | Rawat alleged she was never served and did not appear; claimed extrinsic fraud | Trial court credited the filed service return and appearance evidence; appellate court defers to trial court and affirms denial of vacatur (no abuse of discretion) |
| Liability of Rawat and Trust for punitive damages (ratification) | Evidence shows Singh and Rawat/Trust controlled property and ratified conduct; pattern of misconduct supports punitive award | Rawat denied involvement and urged lack of evidence of ratification/reprehensibility | Appellate court affirmed: no reporter’s transcript but record supports findings; Rawat forfeited many points by misstating facts and failing to show error |
| Sufficiency of evidence of defendants’ financial condition for punitive damages | Plaintiff presented unrebutted property-search evidence; court ordered defendants to produce financials | Defendants argued plaintiff must prove finances; noncompliance means no reliable evidence | Court held defendants’ failure to comply with discovery precluded contesting punitive award on appeal; unrebutted evidence and discovery order justified award |
| Excessiveness of punitive damages ratio and attorney fees | Punitive award tailored to reprehensibility and defendant net worth; fees reasonable based on record | Singh argued punitive damages exceeded permissible multiples and fees excessive | Court found punitive/compensatory ratio (≈3.98:1) below constitutional concern, cited precedent permitting single-digit ratios; fee award not shown to be an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon, 3 Cal.3d 875 (1971) (party who misstated facts on appeal forfeits those points)
- Roby v. McKesson Corp., 47 Cal.4th 686 (2009) (reprehensibility guideposts for punitive damages)
- State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003) (excessive punitive damages and guideposts for ratios)
- Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co., 63 Cal.4th 363 (2016) (single-digit multipliers for punitive damages "rarely exceeded")
- Corenbaum v. Lampkin, 215 Cal.App.4th 1308 (2013) (failure to comply with discovery about finances precludes challenging punitive award)
- Izell v. Union Carbide Corp., 231 Cal.App.4th 962 (2014) (upholding punitive award with ratio above 4:1 in context)
- Farr v. County of Nevada, 187 Cal.App.4th 669 (2010) (proof-of-service presumptions and rebuttal by affidavit)
- In re Heather B., 9 Cal.App.4th 535 (1992) (rebutting service presumptions with declarations)
- PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler, 22 Cal.4th 1084 (2000) (trial court best positioned to determine reasonable attorney fees)
- Hale v. Morgan, 22 Cal.3d 388 (1978) (due process limits on open-ended statutory penalties)