Case Number: BC519418 Hearing Date: May 05, 2016 Dept: 78

Case Name: J. Bruce Jacob, M.D., et al. v. All Green Electric, Inc.
Case Number: BC519418
Request for Default Judgment
Date: May 5, 2016

The court finds substantial evidence has been submitted to support a judgment against All Green for negligence on several bases. All Green was negligent in installing a mammogram machine in plaintiff’s office because it did not tighten a bolt, creating an electro-magnetic field that interfered with the machine. It took several months, and multiple expenses, to diagnose the problem. During that time period, plaintiff had to rent a “Mobile Mammography Unit.” Plaintiff had a five-year contract with an insurance company to perform mammograms for its insureds for a flat monthly fee. The contracts provided that the agreements “shall automatically renew for successive three (3) year periods.” (Ex. 1 to Mamaliger Decl., at p. 645.) two three-year extensions. However, because plaintiff was using this “mobile” unit, the operators of that unit were out of the insurance company’s plan, and its costs skyrocketed. The insurance company later terminated the contract with plaintiff, based in substantial part on the inability of plaintiff to perform mammograms under the contract.

The court requests that Plaintiff California Radiology address the following issues at the OSC re entry of default judgment. First, economist William Buckley does not state how he calculated interest in the case, and the rate of interest. In non-contract cases, California law provides for a 7% interest rate. Buckley should submit a supplemental declaration stating how the interest amounts of $151,892 and $20,456 were calculated.

In addition, the court finds that California Radiology has submitted evidence to support its calculation of damages including $2,642,100 for the present value of the lost marginal income under the initial five-year term of the agreements and $1,487,268 for the present value of the lost marginal income under the first three-year extension in light of the automatic renewal of the contract. However, California Radiology should address at the hearing whether the court should also award damages for the lost marginal income during a second three-year renewal, or whether it is speculative that the contract would be renewed beyond the initial eight-year period. The court does find support for the $111,690 mitigation expenses associated with the rental of the mobile mammography unit.

Finally, the court does not see in the file a dismissal of Defendant MRI. Defendant MRI needs to be dismissed before the court can enter the judgment. Counsel is requested to bring a conformed copy of a dismissal if one has been filed and, if not, for counsel to bring a request for dismissal to the hearing.