Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case Number: 21STCV30300, Date: 2023-10-09 Tentative Ruling

This arises from an employment dispute. The Complaint alleges causes of action for numerous Labor Code violations by Plaintiff Lazaro Ventura Gomez (Plaintiff) against his employers, Defendants Duckmill LLC dba Berkshire House, Berkshire Restaurant and Rami Haddad.

The Complaint was filed on August 17, 2021. On March 16, 2022, Defendants Duckmill LLC dba Berkshire House, Berkshire Restaurant and Rami Haddad filed a joint answer. On August 2, 2023, the Court struck the answer of Duckmill, LLC and Rami Haddad and entered default as to these parties.

After denying Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment on October 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint against Defendants Duckmill LLC dba Berkshire House and Rami Haddad. The FAC alleges causes of action for labor code violations for employee misclassification, failure to pay minimum wages, wages for all hours worked, and overtime, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay wages when employment ends, failure to pay wages every pay period, failure to provide pay records and personnel file, violation of labor code section 558, and unfair business practices pursuant to California Business and Professions Code section 17200.

Default on the FAC was entered as to Defendants Duckmill LLC dba Berkshire House, and Rami Haddad on March 26, 2024.

Plaintiff now moves for default judgment against Defendants. Does 1-50 have been dismissed. The request for entry of default judgment is denied.

Plaintiff seeks default judgment in the amount of $70,951.15, which includes $14,514.96 in interest, $1,328.49 in costs, and $2,237.70 in attorney fees.

The filing of the FAC addressed the Court’s prior concerns that Plaintiff’s request for default judgment damages exceeded the amount requested in the Complaint, running afoul of Code of Civil Procedure section 580.

With respect to the sufficiency of the evidence of damages in this case, Plaintiff submits an identical declaration to the declaration submitted on the prior default judgment. (See generally 8/22/23 Gomez Decl.) Plaintiff’s evidence shows that he worked for Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt cook, dishwasher, food prepper, and cleaner. (Gomez Decl., ¶ 3.) He states that from December 1, 2019, through March 20, 2021, there were several weeks where he did not receive any compensation for work provided; specifically, he states he was not paid s $12,440.00 in regular wages; he also requests an additional $12,440 in liquidated damages for the unpaid wages. (Gomez Decl., ¶ 4.) He also states that he worked overtime approximately 14 hours a week and should have been compensated an additional $6,120.00. (Gomez Decl., ¶ 5.) The total damages for the unpaid minimum wages Labor Code violations are $30,600. (Gomez Decl., ¶ 5.) In addition to these damages, he also seeks penalties in the amount of $6,700 pursuant to Labor Code section 204.

With respect to the remaining Labor Code violations, Plaintiff he states he is entitled to $3,350 for Defendants’ failure furnish Plaintiff pay stubs that accurately reflected all information required by Labor Code section 226. (Gomez ¶ 6; Summary of the Case, 4:25-5:9.) Plaintiff also states that Defendants failed to pay all his wages when his employment ended pursuant to Labor Code section 201(a) such that Defendants were liable for an additional $3,420. (Summary of Case: 5:10-23.) Relying on the evidence that Defendants failed to pay all minimum and overtime wages generally, Plaintiff submits evidence of his daily rate to substantiate his damages for unpaid wages upon his termination. (Gomez Decl., ¶ 7; Summary of the Case, 5:11-23.)

Lastly, Plaintiff submits evidence that he is entitled to 350 days’ worth of rest breaks ($4,200 at $12 an hour) and meal breaks ($4,200 at $12 an hour), entitling him to a total of $8,400. (Summary of Case 5:24-6:27.) Again, Plaintiff does not submit evidence that he was not given rest or meal breaks for 350 days.

Thus, Plaintiff’s damages amount has not been substantiated in the amount of $8,400.[1]

Further, Plaintiff again seeks prejudgment interest starting to accrue from December 1, 2019, the date Plaintiff’s employment purportedly began. (Nigoghosian Decl., ¶¶ 2-5.) However, the damages and civil penalties purportedly incurred were not fully incurred as to all amounts until March 20, 2021, or more than 30 days after for some of Plaintiff’s claims. Thus, Plaintiff’s interest calculation of $14,514.96 still appears improper.

The request for costs in the amount of $1,328.49 has been substantiated. (CIV-100, ¶ 7.) The attorney fees sought are reasonable under Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rule 3.214 are correctly based on the total damages sought. (Nigoghosian Decl., ¶¶ 6-7.)

Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment in the amount of $70,951.15 is denied.

[1] Plaintiff submits evidence that he requested his pay records and his personnel records from Defendants on May 7, 2021, May 13, 2022, and June 6, 2023, but never received a response. (Gomez Decl., ¶ 8.) Plaintiff does not appear to seek any damages or penalties from this conduct in either the default judgment or the FAC.

Department 58