Fernandes v. Singh

• Decision Date: 05 October 2017
• Docket Number: C080264
• Citation: 224 Cal.Rptr.3d 751,16 Cal.App.5th 932
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Tammy FERNANDES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Raj SINGH et al., Defendants and Appellants.

16 Cal.App.5th 932

224 Cal.Rptr.3d 751

Tammy FERNANDES, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.Raj SINGH et al., Defendants and Appellants.

C080264

Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

Filed October 5, 2017

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing November 2, 2017

Raj Singh, in pro. per., Sacramento, for Defendant and Appellant Raj Singh.

Kiran Rawat, in pro. per.; Cable Gallagher and Keith D. Cable, Folsom, for Defendant and Appellant Kiran Rawat, individually and as Trustee of the Sita Ram Trust.

Law Offices of Andrew Wolff, Andrew Wolff, Oakland, David Lavine ; Siegel & Callahan and Caleb Andrew Rush for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Duarte, J.Tammy Fernandes successfully sued vexatious litigant Raj Singh and his wife Kiran Rawat individually and as trustees of the Sita Ram—or "Sitaram"—Trust (Trust), for wrongful eviction and related claims. She obtained an award of compensatory and punitive damages, as well as costs and attorney fees. All defendants filed a joint notice of appeal through counsel. While Rawat and the Trust remain represented by counsel on appeal, Singh now represents himself.¹

On appeal, Rawat claims error in the trial court's denial of her motion to vacate the judgment based on lack of service, and attacks the punitive damage award. Singh also challenges the punitive damage award, disputes service on Rawat, and contends the attorney fee award was excessive. Finding no merit in defendants' claims, we shall affirm.

BACKGROUND

On June 17, 2013, Fernandes sued Singh and Rawat, both as individuals and as trustees of the Trust, alleging (among other theories) breach of the warranty of habitability, conversion of personal property, and wrongful eviction. The lawsuit followed three unlawful detainer complaints filed by defendants after Fernandes exercised her right to complain about the substandard conditions of her rental unit.

Former attorney Oliver filed an answer "for Defendants," denying the allegations and raising the affirmative defense that Fernandes breached the rental agreement. He also filed a cross-complaint "for Defendants," purportedly in the name of "Raj Singh, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated."²

On January 23, 2014, Singh substituted himself in propria persona. He then began to file various bizarre pleadings.

Trial on Liability³

The trial court's March 26, 2015 statement of decision found as follows.

Singh held himself out as the owner of the property when he rented it to Fernandes in 2010, although the property was not habitable. On November 12, 2010, Singh filed an unlawful detainer action against her by using a false name to evade the prefiling requirements of the vexatious litigant statutes. That case was dismissed for "nonappearance of the parties, though Singh, accompanied by attorney Paul Hoff, was present when the case was called for trial." On September 20, 2011, Singh filed a second unlawful detainer action via counsel Hoff, naming the Trust as plaintiff and identifying himself as the landlord. Fernandes prevailed and obtained a conditional judgment reducing her rent and ordering the Trust to repair the premises. "Singh was present at this hearing as the agent for the trust, accompanied by attorney Hoff." At a November 21, 2011 progress hearing on the repairs, no repairs had been undertaken or completed. On that date, Hoff dropped out of the case, and Singh unsuccessfully moved to dismiss it.

On April 11, 2012, Singh filed a third unlawful detainer action against Fernandes, listing himself and Rawat as a trustee for the Trust. He falsely stated an amount of unpaid rent (disregarding the conditional judgment), filed a fraudulent proof of service, took her default, obtained an eviction order, had the sheriff evict her, and then changed the locks. Fernandes returned home after working a graveyard shift as a waitress at a Denny's restaurant to find herself locked out, with deputies barring her entrance, so she could not "retrieve even her most rudimentary belongings" including "necessities of life, like food and clothing." She had nowhere to live, stayed with friends, and struggled to keep her job.

On April 30, 2013, a County of Sacramento code officer inspected the property at the request of subsequent tenants, and found "the very same defects present when Fernandes" was living there, and noted that Singh refused to make repairs and tried to serve a three-day notice to quit on the current occupants, misstating the date.

Singh never complied with a court order to return the property Fernandes had left in her unit, although she found some of her property in a trash can. The estimated value of the missing property was nearly $21,000. Her ordeal at Singh's hands caused Fernandes "great emotional distress."

The trial court found "Singh rented uninhabitable premises to Fernandes at an exorbitant rental rate and then retaliated against her when she complained about the uninhabitable conditions. His conduct is utterly indefensible." The total award for compensatory damages was $87,894.

The trial court found four retaliatory acts: the three unlawful detainer actions, plus the repeated demands for payment of rent despite the conditional judgment in favor of Fernandes. The statutory penalty was $2,000 per act, or $8,000. (See Civ. Code, § 1942.5, subd. (f)(2).) By clear and convincing evidence, the trial court found Singh acted with oppression, fraud or malice, both actual and implied, based on his "despicable conduct ... with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of Fernandes. Moreover, clear and convincing evidence establishes that defendant Kiran Rawat, who is in default for non-appearance at trial and the Sitaram Trust ratified and approved the malicious, fraudulent and oppressive conduct of defendant Singh."⁴

The statement of decision then provides "this court must consider the net worth of the defendants in assessing an appropriate punitive damage award. Accordingly, Raj Singh, Kiran Rawat and the Sitaram Trust are ordered to appear and present evidence of (1) profits gained from the rental of the premises to Fernandes; (2) their financial condition, to include evidence of income, assets, liabilities and net worth. Failure to comply with this order will be deemed a waiver of the right to contest the amount of punitive damages thereafter awarded ." (Italics added.) All parties were ordered to appear at a hearing on April 3, 2015.

Punitive Damages Hearing

At the April 3, 2015 hearing on punitive damages, Rawat did not appear. Singh had filed a "reply" to the statement of decision, but it did not explain his financial condition or list his properties; instead it objected that it was a plaintiff's burden to prove financial condition. Singh also claimed he had suffered financial harm and was entitled to damages of over $200,000, as well as sanctions of $1,000,000.

Counsel for Fernandes filed a declaration in support of punitive damages, detailing his search of property records, showing the Trust held property in the Sacramento area of a total sale value of over $341,000, and Rawat held property of a total sale value of over $1,383,000, but that it was impossible to ascertain Singh's own holdings, due to his common name. This declaration was not rebutted.

At the hearing, the trial court asked Singh if he would produce his financial information, and Singh declined, claiming there were "lawsuits pending with IRS" and claiming not to own any property. He claimed to be unemployed. He never explained what happened to the money he received from Fernandes.

In a "final" statement of decision, the trial court ruled that the failure of each defendant to comply with the order regarding financial condition barred any objection to an award of punitive damages. The court found:

"Clear and convincing evidence therefore establishes that Singh, Rawat and the Sitaram Trust owned, managed and controlled the subject property ... and in so doing, engaged in conduct that was intentional, malicious, fraudulent and oppressive. The evidence likewise establishes their actions were part of a continuing course of misconduct and a method of doing business rather than an isolated incident, because the persons who succeeded Fernandes as tenants were subjected to the same or similar oppressive tactics.

"In consideration of the evidence of financial condition of the defendants, the extreme reprehensibility of their conduct and the extent of the harm inflicted on plaintiff, punitive damages are awarded in the amount of $350,000."

Post-Punitive Damages Trial Motions

Singh moved to modify the ruling, in part alleging that Rawat was never served. In reply, Fernandes in part relied on a proof of service on Rawat, the answer filed by Oliver on behalf of "Defendants," and Rawat's verified response to standard interrogatories.

The trial court denied Singh's motion on May 22, 2015, and filed a formal judgment on that same day, awarding Fernandes $87,894 in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages, plus costs, prejudgment interest, and attorney fees.⁵

Singh filed another motion, confusingly captioned and structured, but in essence seeking to change the judgment. This was later denied.

Rawat and the Trust moved to set aside the "ruling" alleging Rawat was "surprised to know that there is a judgment against me and against Sitaram Trust in this case." Rawat claimed Oliver abandoned her, "never even informed Kiran Rawat and Sitaram Trust about this case," and she had not been served with any documents in the case. Rawat declared Singh "never even informed me all the facts in this case" and "never asked my approval to do anything in this case." Rawat did not, however, declare that she did not know about the case.

Later, and represented by counsel, Rawat, individually and in her capacity as a trustee of the Trust, filed a formal motion to vacate the judgment as "void" due to lack of service. In support, Rawat filed a new declaration alleging she was the only trustee of the Trust; the facts stated in the proof of...