Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case 22STCV00852 2023-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Responding Party: Unopposed

Tentative Ruling: The Court grants the request for default judgment and awards a total of $118,265.01, representing $114,300 in compensatory damages, $932.01 in costs, and $3,033 in attorney’s fees.

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.

The Court previously denied the request for default judgment for Plaintiff’s failure to discuss her claim for general damages and backpay. Plaintiff now submits additional declarations and details.

Plaintiff requests damages in the total amount of $114,300. This represents $38,100.00 for special damages and $76,200 for general damages

Plaintiff’s counsel provides the calculations necessary for special damages. For example, as to missed meal period, counsel avers that Plaintiff missed 112 meal periods between February 19, 2021 through August 30, 2021. At a rate of $15.00 per hour, this amounts to $1,680. (Chica Decl., ¶ 29(a).) Counsel provides similar calculations for missed rest periods, overtime dues, waiting time penalties, failure to provide personnel file penalties, and statutory penalties. (Id. at ¶ 29(b)-(g).) Thus, the Court awards the total amount of statutory penalties at $22,050.

As to the $16,050 for “back pay” owed between August 30, 2021 through March 14, 2022, counsel avers that the amount was calculated by multiplying the number of days (138) by Plaintiff’s daily wage of $120. (Chica Decl., ¶ 29(h).) Plaintiff attests that from August 30, 2021 through March 14, 2022, she “called various barber shops and hair salons to begin working.” (Castellon Decl., ¶ 13.) She called a total of ten different locations. She was eventually able to obtain employment at Super Cuts, where she worked until June 2022. Since July 2022, she has been working at Floyd’s 99 Barbershop. (Ibid.) The Court finds this amount in reasonable. In total, the Court awards $38,100 in special damages.

As to general damages, Plaintiff previously requested $330,000; in this supplemental request, the amount has been reduced to $76,200. Plaintiff avers that from July 2021 through mid-2022, she has experienced “emotional distress and depression,” causing “severe weight loss . . . hair loss . . . [and] anxiety.” (Castellon Decl., ¶ 14.) Counsel provides the declaration of Diane Kaufman, Defendant’s former manager, who attests that after the incident in July 2021, Plaintiff appears “stressed, anxious and reserved.” (Kaufman Decl., ¶ 7.) The Court finds this amount to be reasonable and awards $76,200 in general damages.

Counsel requests $3,033.00 in fees under Local Rule 3.214. The amount complies with the rule and the amount is awarded.

Plaintiff also requests $932.01 in costs, representing $464.51 in filing fees, and $467.50 in service fees. These amounts are proper under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1033.5, subdivisions (a)(1) and (a)(4). Accordingly, the Court grants these amounts.

Department 58