Department 58

Hearing Date: January 25, 2023

Case Name: Ashley Castellon v. CKS Holdings, LLC et al.

Case No.: 22STCV00852

Matter: Default Judgment Application

Moving Party: Plaintiff Ashley Castellon

Responding Party: Unopposed

Tentative Ruling: The Court denies the request for default judgment.

Background

In this employment action, Ashley Castellon (Plaintiff) sued CKS Holdings, LLC, Trimmer Enterprises, Inc., Kenneth Trimmer, and Claudia Trimmer (Defendants) for failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to provide personnel records, whistleblower retaliation, disability discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), failure to provide reasonable accommodations and engage in the interactive process, FEHA retaliation, failure to prevent discrimination, and wrongful termination. Plaintiff alleges that she was employed by Defendants between February 19, 2021 through August 30, 2021 as a hair stylist. In July 2021, Plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on Defendant’s premises, and subsequently required modified working conditions.

Individual Defendants Kenneth Trimmer and Claudia Trimmer filed answers for themselves and on behalf of the entities. All Defendants failed to appear at subsequent hearings. On September 1, 2022, the Court struck the corporate Defendants’ answers for failure to be represented by counsel and struck the individual Defendants’ answers for failure to appear. Default was entered on that same day. The Doe defendants were dismissed in December 2022.

Discussion

Plaintiff requests damages in the total amount of $375,586.50. This represents $38,100.00 for special damages, $330,000.00 for general damages, $886.50 in costs, and $6,600.00 in attorney fees.

“Plaintiffs in a default judgment proceeding must prove they are entitled to the damages claimed.” (Barragan v. Banco BCH (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 283, 302, citing Code Civ. Proc., § 585 & Taliaferro v. Hoogs (1963) 219 Cal.App.2d 559, 560.) If evidence is presented by declaration, the facts must be shown to be “within the personal knowledge of the affiant and shall be set forth with particularity, and each affidavit shall show affirmatively that the affiant, if sworn as a witness, can testify competently thereto.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 585, subd. (d).)

Plaintiff has still not met her burden to provide sufficient information to justify her damages. Counsel’s declaration avers to requesting $375,586.50 in damages, but only provides the calculations for up to $38,100.00. (Chica Decl., ¶¶ 26(a)–(h).)

As to Plaintiff’s claimed damages of “back pay,” she requests $16,050 for the period between August 30, 2021, and March 14, 2022, which represents her unemployment period. But she does not describe her efforts on mitigating her damages during that period such as her specific attempts to locate employment. Without further detail on her diligence and efforts, her damages are too speculative.

Accordingly, the Court denies the request for default judgment to a later date for Plaintiff to produce declarations with the corresponding calculations and evidence. Counsel is instructed to provide updated Judicial Council Forms CIV-100 and JUD-100 once the amounts are ascertained.