Wonzer v. Hernandez

Background

Seketha Wonzer and Kevin Dozier sued Daniel Hernandez, also known as Tekashi 6ix 9ine, over his participation in an April 3, 2018 armed robbery. The plaintiffs alleged that they were ambushed after leaving a commercial building in New York City, that approximately $1,500 and a gold chain were taken from Dozier, and that they suffered post-traumatic stress disorder.

Hernandez did not answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment on all causes of action on June 22, 2021. A default judgment is a judgment entered because a defendant did not defend the case; it establishes liability without a contested trial. The court then referred the case to Magistrate Judge Jennifer Willis to determine damages.

Damages Recommendation and Objections

Magistrate Judge Willis recommended awarding Wonzer $15,000 in compensatory damages and $15,000 in punitive damages. She recommended awarding Dozier $30,000 in compensatory damages, $30,000 in punitive damages, and $7,500 in treble damages under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. She also recommended denying the plaintiffs’ request for permission to amend the judgment concerning their Medicare and Medicaid liens.

The plaintiffs objected to the recommended compensatory and punitive damages, arguing that each should receive $560,000 in compensatory damages and that higher punitive damages were appropriate. They did not object to the recommended $7,500 in treble damages for Dozier or to the recommendation concerning the Medicare and Medicaid liens.

Compensatory Damages

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ challenge to the compensatory damages. It concluded that the expert report concerning Wonzer was unreliable because it relied on accounts of the robbery that conflicted with the video evidence and did not adequately address other possible causes of her emotional distress, including the later shooting death of her husband. The court also found that the report did not reliably establish that her injuries were permanent. It therefore approved $15,000 as an appropriate award for her emotional distress.

The court likewise found problems with the expert report concerning Dozier. The report’s testing results conflicted with statements Dozier made to a treating doctor, and the account of the robbery on which the report relied conflicted with the video evidence. The report also did not explain how the robbery worsened Dozier’s preexisting depression or to what extent. The court concluded that $30,000 was supported by the evidence.

Punitive Damages

The court also upheld the recommended punitive damages: $15,000 for Wonzer and $30,000 for Dozier. Punitive damages are intended to punish especially wrongful conduct and deter similar conduct. The court considered the seriousness of the conduct, the relationship between the actual harm and the punitive award, comparable civil penalties, and Hernandez’s financial circumstances.

The court emphasized that Hernandez participated in the conspiracy but remained outside in a car and videotaped the robbery rather than physically carrying it out. It also considered the robbery’s short duration, the lack of physical violence against the plaintiffs, the limited weight given to evidence concerning Hernandez’s alleged lack of remorse, and evidence that his current liabilities exceeded his assets. The court found that a one-to-one ratio between compensatory and punitive damages was appropriate.

Disposition

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon rejected the plaintiffs’ objections and adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment against Hernandez for $30,000 to Seketha Wonzer and $67,500 to Kevin Dozier. The court also directed the Clerk to close the case.