Department 58

Hearing Date: April 13, 2023

Case Name: Jose Alberto Gomez v. Mijoma Inc. dba LA Green Designs, et al.

Case No.: 22STCV32789

Motion: Request for Entry of Default Judgment

Moving Party: Plaintiff Jose Alberto Gomez

Responding Party: Defendants Mijoma Inc. dba LA Green Designs and Jose Alfonso Martinez

Tentative Ruling: Request for entry of default judgment is denied for lack of evidence.

Background

This is an employment action. Plaintiff Jose Alberto Gomez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on October 6, 2022, alleging causes of action against Defendants Mijoma Inc. dba LA Green Designs and Jose Alfonso Martinez (collectively, “Defendants”) for: (1) failure to provide meal and rest periods; (2) failure to pay all wages due upon termination; (3) failure to pay all wages earned; (4) failure to pay overtime wages; (5) failure to issue accurate itemized wage statements; (6) failure to timely produce personnel file; (7) violations of California’s unfair competition act; (8) retaliation per Labor Code section 98.6; (9) retaliation per Labor Code sections 1102.5 and 1102.6; and (10) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

Default was entered against the Defendants on December 22, 2022. Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default judgment against Defendants on February 10, 2023.

Discussion

Damages

“In all default judgments, the demand sets the ceiling on recovery.” (Barragan v. Banco BCH (1986) 188 Cal. App. 3d 283, 305.) A request for damages according to proof without alleging the amount of damages sought is insufficient to support a default judgment. (Yu v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 1024, 1032.)

Plaintiff has requested damages in the amount of $892,091. This exceeds the amount demanded in the complaint and is not supported by the evidence submitted. First, the prayer of the complaint only identifies certain damage amounts with respect to the first, second, fifth, sixth, eighth, and ninth causes of action, and the total amount that those add up to is approximately $83,773.20. The other causes of action fail to specify a damage amount. The body of the complaint adds up to even less considering the allegations of the ninth cause of action do not contain a specific damage amount. It is unclear how Plaintiff determined the amount under the complaint to be $142,091. (Gomez Decl., ¶ 14.) Second, Plaintiff has requested $750,000 in emotional distress damages without providing evidence to support that amount.

Attorney’s Fees

Plaintiff has requested $25,000 in attorney’s fees without providing any declarations from Plaintiff’s counsel detailing the calculations for this amount. $25,000 appears excessive for a case that was only filed approximately six months ago with only a complaint and default judgment packet having been prepared and filed.

Therefore, in light of the foregoing, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment.

Conclusion

The Court denies Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment without prejudice. The Court will set a hearing for an amended application.