Williams v. La Perla North America, Inc.
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:23-cv-01633
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Williams v. La Perla North America, Judge Corley awarded the receiver $1,325,933.10 in damages after La Perla defaulted.
Gregg Williams, in his capacity as court-appointed Receiver, and La Perla North America, Inc.
What happened
In Williams v. La Perla North America, Gregg Williams, acting as a court-appointed Receiver, claimed that La Perla breached a commercial lease by leaving the property in April 2021 and not paying rent beginning in May 2021.
The court had already entered default against La Perla and granted Williams’s motion for default judgment. It required additional evidence because Williams’s earlier damage calculations were not adequately explained, and it held an evidentiary hearing.
Judge Jacquelyn Corley ruled that Williams proved damages by the required level of proof and awarded $1,325,933.10, plus attorney’s fees and costs previously awarded. The amount was lower than the $1,325,993.10 Williams originally sought.
The detailed version
- Williams v. La Perla North America, Inc. · No. 3:23-cv-01633
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Aug. 28, 2024
Background
Gregg Williams, acting as a court-appointed Receiver, alleged that La Perla North America, Inc. breached a lease between La Perla and Williams’s predecessor in interest. According to the complaint allegations described in the order, La Perla vacated the leased commercial property at 170 Geary Street in San Francisco in April 2021 and stopped paying rent in May 2021. Williams sought $1,325,993.10 in damages.
The court ordered La Perla’s default on April 4, 2024, and previously granted Williams’s motion for default judgment. The court also previously awarded $152,630.10 in attorney’s fees and $1,447.31 in costs. The remaining issue was the amount of monetary damages.
Damages Proceedings
The court explained that, even after default, factual allegations about damages are not automatically accepted as true. A plaintiff must prove all damages sought, and the damages cannot exceed the amount requested in the complaint. The court may determine damages without a hearing when the amount is fixed or can be calculated mathematically, but evidence is required when the claimed amount is not adequately supported.
The court found Williams’s first two supplemental submissions insufficient to explain the damage calculations. It therefore held an evidentiary hearing, questioned Williams about his prior declarations and calculations, and ordered a third supplemental submission after Williams acknowledged errors in the second submission.
Ruling
After reviewing Williams’s revised general ledger, further revised declaration, three supplemental submissions, and in-court testimony, the court found that Williams proved damages by a preponderance of the evidence. A preponderance of the evidence means that the evidence showed the claimed amount was more likely than not correct.
Judge Jacquelyn Corley awarded Williams $1,325,933.10 in damages and stated that judgment would issue for that amount, in addition to the attorney’s fees and costs previously awarded. The order did not award the full $1,325,993.10 originally requested.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.