at 6. Allegedly, this reliance caused Plaintiffs to be “denied the coverage benefits of the State Farm Policy,” caused Plaintiffs to incur “costs and expenses,” and “exposed [Marentes] to liability.” Id. ¶ 70. The Court first addresses whether Defendant has provided sufficient evidence of damages and then discusses whether those damages were caused by Marentes’ reliance on the allegedly false promises'. a. Evidence of Damages The only evidence in the record of Mar-entes’ damages is the default judgment that was entered against Marentes after a prove-up hearing on March 28, 2016. ECF No. 48-33. The default judgment constitutes a compensable harm despite the accompanying covenant not to execute. See Consol. Am. Ins. Co. v. Mike Soper Marine Servs., 951 F.2d 186, 190-91 (9th Cir. 1991) (<HOLDING>). The record contains no evidence of the three
holding on summary judgment that an attorney who failed to timely file an answer leading to a default judgment was on notice that a malpractice claim might be filed against him holding that a judgment constituted harm despite a covenant not to execute because the insured was left with a judgment against him that could have collateral adverse effects in several respects including on his future credit holding that because a judgment was awarded the plaintiffs against the united states no judgment will be announced against the government employee holding that despite assurances from the insurance company that the insured could file the pol after femas deadline the insured could not collect because the insured was responsible for timely filing holding that collateral estoppel applies only where the antecedent judgment was a final judgment