Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 24STCV01121, Date: 2025-01-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV01121    Hearing Date: January 22, 2025    Dept: 14

MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Facts of the Case:  This is an action for violations of the FEHA and the Labor Code. Plaintiff alleges that during her employment as a server, she was required to work shifts that were too long, could not take meal breaks, received fewer tips than other employees, and suffered racial discrimination. Plaintiff was terminated after she developed back pain which required accommodations and medical leave.

Procedural History:

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

Damages: $278,798.09

Interest:  $5,515.87

Attorney Fees:  $15,000

Costs: $809.30

Recommendation: Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

Plaintiff failed to submit a completed CIV-100 requesting a court judgment.

Plaintiff’s demand for punitive damages is also defective.

A plaintiff may not specify the amount of punitive damages claimed in the complaint but must instead preserved the right to seek punitive damages by serving the defendant with a statement that plaintiff is reserving the right and specifying the amount sought. (Code Civ. Proc., section 425.115(b).) The statement must be served on the defendant before entry of default. (Code Civ. Proc., section 425.115(f).)

To be entitled to punitive damages, the plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is guilty of fraud, oppression, or malice. (Civ. Code, section 3294(a).) A court must consider the nature of the defendant’s misconduct, the amount of compensatory damages, and the defendant’s financial condition. (Adams v Murakami (1991) 54 C3d 105, 111–114.) The award must have a deterrent effect without being excessive. (Id.) Evidence of the net profit the defendant earned from its tortious conduct may be an appropriate basis for an award of punitive damages. (Cummings Medical Corp. v. Occupational Medical Corp. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1291, 1300.)

Here, there is no evidence that Plaintiff complied with Code Civ. Proc., section 425.115. Plaintiff also fails to provide evidence that of Defendant’s financial condition. The Court cannot determine whether the amount in punitive damages here is appropriate without this information.

Finally, there does not appear to be a reason to depart from the attorney’s fee schedule in Rule 3.214 of the Local Rules of Court. The Court will award a reduced amount in fees based on this schedule. Plaintiff’s amended forms must reflect the lower amount.