Opinion
Case No. 98-CV-70639-DT.
January 28, 2000.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Kim Stokes and Mary Croskey were residents at an apartment located at 20477-20483 Fleming, Detroit, Michigan. Defendants are Manford Cetner d/b/a Downtown Management Company, John L. Bunch, Carol J. Bunch, Kenneth R. Borsuk and Madeline Borsuk d/b/a Chateau Manor Apartments and Arthur Bell. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Kenneth and Madeline Borsuk d/b/a Chateau Manor Apartments. Plaintiffs also moved to voluntarily dismiss Defendants John L. Bunch and Carol L. Bunch at the January 27, 2000 hearing. Defendant Manford Cetner, d/b/a Downtown Management Company, was dismissed pursuant to a stipulation. The remaining Defendant is Defendant Arthur Bell, the resident manager.
Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Arthur Bell. The hearing was held on January 10, 24 and 27, 2000. Notice was sent to defendant Arthur Bell and he failed to appear on any of the hearing dates. The Court heard Plaintiffs' testimonies on their damages.
ANALYSIS
Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 55(a) provides: "When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by these rules and that fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk shall enter the party's default." Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 55(b)(2) states that upon application by the party, the Court may enter a Judgment by Default. Rule 55(b)(2) further states: "If in order to enable the court to enter judgment or to carry it into effect, it is necessary to take an account or to determine the amount of damages or to establish the truth of any averment by evidence or to make an investigation of any other matter, the court may conduct such hearings or order such references as it deems necessary and proper. . . ."
A Clerk's entry of default was entered against Defendant Bell on June 17, 1998. Plaintiffs now seek a default judgment against Defendant Bell. Plaintiffs' Proof of Service indicates that Defendant Bell was served with the instant motion on October 20, 1999. Notice of the Motion Hearing was sent to Defendant Bell. Defendant Bell was served with the Complaint and to date has not conducted any defense on his own behalf. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 55(b)(2), proofs were taken as to Plaintiffs' damages.
This action was filed under the Federal Fair Housing Act 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. 42 U.S.C. § 3613 authorizes "actual and punitive damages." Baumgardner v. Secretary, United States Dep't of HUD, 960 F.2d 572, 580 (6th Cir. 1982). Actual damages are compensatory damages. Compensatory damages include: 1) economic loss (out-of-pocket loss and other monetary harms) and 2) non-economic loss (emotional distress for humiliation, hurt, mental anguish, and "intangible dignitary interests"). Id. at 582-583. Compensatory damages do not include "perceived `subjective perception of the importance of constitutional rights as an abstract matter.'" Id. at 583. The Court cannot award compensatory damages for the trier of fact's perception that a violation of a civil right is a serious matter. Id. at 538-538. Proof of mental anguish or emotional distress does not have to include medical testimony and it may consist of the plaintiffs testimony, alone, as corroborated by reference to the circumstances of the alleged misconduct. Broome v. Biondi, 17 F. Supp.2d 211, 224 (E.D. N.Y. 1997)
Punitive damages include egregious discrimination, wilful and wanton conduct disregarding a person's rights, and deterrence. Baumgardner, 960 F.2d at 583; Marr v. Rife, 503 F.2d 735 (6th Cir. 1974); Darby v. Heather Ridge, 827 F. Supp. 1296, 1300 (E.D. Mich. 1993) (J. Gadola); Shaw v. Cassar, 558 F. Supp. 303, 315 (E.D. Mich. 1983) (J. Cohn). The Supreme Court has created three guideposts to assist courts in determining the reasonableness of a punitive damage award: 1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct; 2) the ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages; and 3) a comparison of the punitive damages award to civil or criminal penalties that could be imposed for comparable misconduct. BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 573-585 (1996).
The amount of damages involves a factual determination and is left to the good judgment of the fact finder as guided by the facts of a particular case. No formula exists to determine with precision compensatory or punitive damages. Shaw, 558 F. Supp. at 315. District courts "should not attempt to reconcile widely varied past awards for analogous injuries which in the abbreviated appellant decisions of them seem somewhat similar." Moody v. Pepsi-Cola Metro. Bottling Co., Inc., 915 F.2d 201 (6th Cir. 1990).
The Court made factual findings on the record. Based on both Plaintiffs' testimonies and for the reasons set forth on the record, the Court awards the following:
Plaintiff Croskey
Compensatory damages/out-of-pocket costs: $ 3,749.00 Compensatory damages/emotional distress: $15,000.00 Punitive damages: $10,000.00 Total: $28,749.00Plaintiff Stokes
Compensatory damages/out-of-pocket costs: $ 2,000.00 Compensatory damages/emotional distress: $10,000.00 Punitive damages: $10,000.00 Total: $22,000.00
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment as to Defendant Arthur Bell ( Docket NO. 31, filed October 21, 1999) is GRANTED. Judgment is entered against Defendant Bell and in favor of Plaintiffs.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Defendants John L. Bunch and Carol J. Bunch is GRANTED. Defendants John L. Bunch and Carol J. Bunch are DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Croskey is awarded damages in the amount of $28,749.00.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Stokes is awarded damages in the amount of $22,000.00.
DENISE PAGE HOOD United States District Judge
DATED: JAN 28 2000