FINDINGS AND JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Maynard M. Kirpalani, Justice
matter came before the Court on March 14, 2016 for hearing on
plaintiff's Motion to Assess Damages against defendants,
Randy Hamida (" Hamida") and Randy's Mens (sic)
Wear, Ltd., Inc. (" Randy's Mens Wear"). The
defendants were previously defaulted for failure to appear at
a status conference on October 5, 2015, after their attorney
had, with leave of court, withdrawn from representing them in
early September 2015. The defendants also failed to appear at
the assessment of damages hearing and did not oppose the
motion. After consideration of the record, including a
supplemental affidavit of the plaintiff filed with leave of
court on March 24, 2016, the court finds as follows.
plaintiff, David Ortiz, (" Ortiz") is a
professional major league baseball player of considerable
local and national renown. Hamida is a businessman from
California who, among other things, deals in purportedly fine
jewelry. Both defendants are engaged in the business of
selling jewelry. Hamida conducts this business through
Randy's Mens Wear. Neither defendant maintains a place of
business or keeps assets in the Commonwealth. Hamida targets
professional athletes for his jewelry sales and frequents
locations where the athletes may be found in public, such as
their team traveling hotels. In 2010 and thereafter, Hamida
pursued encounters with Ortiz in order to do business with
him. In that time frame, he had a series of encounters with
Ortiz which lead up to a meeting with Ortiz at his home in
Massachusetts on October 6, 2010. At that time, Ortiz agreed
to buy certain purportedly custom designed jewelry composed
of precious metals, diamonds and other precious gems which
were represented to be worth in excess of $127, 000.00. Ortiz
paid for his purchase at this meeting with a check for $80,
000.00 payable to " Randy's" and also traded a
gold necklace and bracelet which Ortiz claims were worth
approximately $47, 000.00. The jewelry provided by Hamida was
partly delivered to Ortiz at the October 6. 2010 meeting and
partly thereafter in the spring of 2011.
in 2011, Ortiz discovered that the jewelry provided by Hamida
was not as represented, was worth far less than $127, 000.00
and was not in all cases composed of the precious metals and
gems of which Hamida had claimed them to be composed.
Thereafter, Ortiz confronted Hamida, who admitted that the
jewelry was not of the quality and value represented. Hamida
made these false representations to Ortiz with knowledge of
their falsehood and with the intent that Ortiz rely upon them
in order to induce Ortiz to pay amounts far in excess of
their true value.
2011, Ortiz demanded the return of his bracelet and necklace
and his $80, 000.00. Ortiz returned to Hamida all of the
jewelry that Hamida had provided to Ortiz in their
transaction. In consideration of Ortiz refraining from taking
any legal action against him, Hamida promised to return
Ortiz's money and the jewelry, but to date has failed to
failure of the defendants to deliver jewelry of the kind and
value agreed upon was done in bad faith and destroyed the
right of the plaintiff to receive the fruits of the contract.
jewelry that Ortiz transferred to Hamida had a fair market
value at the time of transfer of at least $24, 600.00.
facts established by the defendants' default and the
findings of the court support the conclusion that plaintiff
has been damaged in the amount of at least $104, 600.00.
Judgment, with statutory costs, should enter in favor of the
plaintiff against the defendants, jointly and severally, as
plaintiff's damages shall be trebled in accordance with
G.L.c. 231, § 85J. Accordingly, judgment shall enter in
the amount of $313, 800.00, plus interest from date of suit.
II (Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing)
shall enter in the amount of $104, 600.00, plus interest from
date of suit.
III (Breach of Contract)
shall enter in the amount of $104, 600.00, plus ...