Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 23STCV30290, Date: 2025-04-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV30290    Hearing Date: April 8, 2025    Dept: 14

#1

Facts of the Case:  This is an action for violations of the FEHA and the Labor Code.

Procedural History:

On December 12, 2023, Plaintiff Melissa Orosco filed her Complaint against Defendants Alec’s Pizzeria, Inc., Baldwin Park Pizza Co., George Mikaelian, and Edita Mikaelian.

On May 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.

On September 4, 2024, default was entered against Edita Mikaelian.

On September 6, 2024, default was entered against Baldwin Park Pizza Co.

On October 7, 2024, default was entered against George Mikaelian.

On November 18, 2024, default was entered against Alec’s Pizzeria, Inc.

On January 27, 2025, Plaintiff submitted her application for entry of default judgment

On February 3, 2025, Plaintiff dismissed the Doe Defendants in this action.

Submitted: The requirements of CRC Rule 3.1800 have been met.

Principal Requested:

Plaintiff requests $1,518,916.00 in special and general damages.

Plaintiff provides her declaration, which states she worked six days per week for about 47 hours at a rate of $14.50 per hour between December 2019 and March 2022. (Orosco Decl., ¶¶4-6.) Plaintiff was not permitted 10-minute rest breaks for 708 days. (Id., ¶7.) Plaintiff did not receive an accurate pay stub 60 times. (Id., ¶8.) Plaintiff testifies that she was terminated after she disclosed back injuries and took time off work to obtain treatment. (Id., ¶¶10-15.)

Plaintiff requests $10,266 for missed rest breaks, $4,000 for failure to furnish wage and hour statements, $3,150 for waiting time penalties, and $1,500 for failure to permit inspection of personnel and payroll records. These damages are properly calculated under Labor Code, sections 226.7, 203, 226, and 1198.5. These damages total $18,916.

Plaintiff seeks damages for lost wages and emotional distress damages. Plaintiff makes a sweeping request for $1.5 million in damages. The Court cannot determine what part of this figure is for lost wages and what part is for emotional distress damages. Although Plaintiff provides evidence that she did suffer emotional distress damages, the evidence is not sufficient to support her request for $1.5 million in damages. Further, Plaintiff fails to provide evidence to support the request for lost wages, including evidence of Plaintiff’s efforts to mitigate her damages and her future earning potential. Plaintiff’s argument that she would have been employed by Defendants indefinitely is speculative and not well taken.

Plaintiff must separate the request for lost wages from her request for emotional distress damages and support the requests for damages with evidence.

Interest:  $440,348.56

The Cout notes that the demand for interest on form JUD-100 is $440,348.56, whereas the interest calculated in declaration in support of interest is $4,060.95. The amount stated on form JUD-100 appears to include Plaintiff’s demand for emotional distress damages which may not be included in a calculation of interest. (See Moreno v. Bassi (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 244, 250.)

Plaintiff must provide a calculation of interest based on the new damages amount and excluding general damages from the calculation.

Attorney Fees:  $25,792.50

Attorney’s fees may be awarded, in the court’s discretion, to a prevailing plaintiff in actions for FEHA violations. (Gov. Code, section 12965.)

Local Rule of the Court, rule 3.214(a) provides, in relevant part:

When a promissory note, contract, or statute provides for the recovery of reasonable attorneys’ fees, the following schedule will apply to the amount of the new judgement unless otherwise determined by the court. Default case:

$0.01 to $1,000, 15% with a minimum of $75.00;

$1,000.01 to $10,000, $150 plus 6% of the excess over $1,000;

$10,000.01 to $50,000, $690 plus 3% of the excess over $10,000;

$50,000.01 to $100,000, $1,890 plus 2% of the excess over $50,000;

Over $100,000, $2,890 plus 1% of the excess over $100,000.

An application for a fee greater than listed in the schedule because of extraordinary services must include an itemized statement of the services rendered or to be rendered. (Local Rule of Court, rule 3.214(d).)

Here, this case resulted in a default. After examining Plaintiff’s counsel’s billing, the Court finds the work performed on this case was routine and does not justify a greater fees award than what is allowed under rule 3.214(d). Plaintiff must recalculate attorney’s fees using the formula in rule 3.214(d) after recalculating damages.

Costs: $2,232.95

Plaintiff failed to fill out Item 7 of form CIV-100.