Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ortiz v. Hamideh

Superior Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex

May 23, 2016

David Ortiz
v.
Randy Hamida aka Randy Hamideh et al No. 134020

          FINDINGS AND JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF

          Maynard M. Kirpalani, Justice

         This 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for failure to appear at a status conference on October 5, 2015, after their attorney had, with leave of court, withdrawn from representing them in early September 2015.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.

         The 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.[1] The jewelry provided by Hamida was partly delivered to Ortiz at the October 6. 2010 meeting and partly thereafter in the spring of 2011.

         Thereafter, 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.

         In 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 do so.

         The 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.

         The jewelry that Ortiz transferred to Hamida had a fair market value at the time of transfer of at least $24, 600.00.

         The 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 follows.

         Count I (Fraud)

         The 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.

         Count II (Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing)

         Judgment shall enter in the amount of $104, 600.00, plus interest from date of suit.

         Count III (Breach of Contract)

         Judgment shall enter in the amount of $104, 600.00, plus ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.