Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 22PSCV00461, Date: 2024-04-17 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

Case Number: 22PSCV00461    Hearing Date: April 17, 2024    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs’ Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiffs are to provide a courtesy copy of the relevant (no duplicate) application material at least 16 court days before the hearing date.

Background

This is an employment case.

On May 16, 2022, Plaintiffs Dong Kwon Lee (“Lee”) and Eun Sook Kim (“Kim”) filed suit against Defendant 101 Sushi Roll and Grill.

On June 14, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)[1] against Defendants SM.Kan Inc. dba 101 Sushi Roll and Grill (“Sushi 101”) and individual Defendant Sungmin Jeon (“Jeon”)[2] asserting the following causes of action:

(1) Failure To Pay Overtime Wages In Violation Of Labor Code § 204, 510 (2) Failure To Pay Minimum Wages In Violation Of Labor Code § 1194, 1194.2, 1197.1

(3) Failure To Provide Meal Periods In Violation Of Labor Code § 226.7, 512

(4) Failure To Provide Rest Periods In Violation Of Labor Code § 226.7

(5) Failure To Provide Split Shift Premium Pay

(6) Conversion

(7) Failure To Provide Final Wages At Separation In Violation Of Labor Code § 201, 203

(8) Violation Of California Business And Professions Code § 17200

On October 3, 2022, the court granted prior counsel’s motions to be relieved as counsel.

On October 6, 2022, default was entered against SM.KAN, Inc., a California corporation doing business as 101 Sushi Roll &Grill and Jeon. According to the proofs of service (POS) filed on 8/18/22, Defendants were served via substituted service by giving the papers to Jon Kim—Manager—Person in Charge of Office at 15347 Gale Avenue in the City of Industry. Thus, service was proper.

On February 17, 2023, the court denied the default judgment. Though the ruling was to deny without prejudice, the court stated that the FAC amounts to open-ended liability such that should Plaintiffs seek default judgment, they are to file a new amended complaint. That same day, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint (SAC) against the same defendants.

On August 16, 2023, default was entered against Sushi 101 and Jeon.

On February 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed numerous filings in support of its application for default judgment.

Discussion

There are a couple of notable defects with the application material.

First, there are numerous duplicate filings. The court requests that Plaintiffs file pertinent application material and appropriately label each filing (e.g., “Summary of Case for Lee”; “Proposed Judgment for Lee”).

Second, the damages provided in the case summary do not match the amount sought in default judgment. For example, the case summary states that Lee “is entitled to $166,395.52 for compensatory/statutory damages, in addition to attorney’s fees and costs” (Case Summary p. 4:27-28), but the proposed judgment (JUD-100) form filed for Lee seeks only $125,209.18. As for Kim, “Lee [sic] is entitled to $122,430.21 for compensatory/statutory damages, in addition to attorney’s fees and costs” (Case Summary p. 5:22-23), but the demand of the complaint as stated on Kim’s proposed order is $91,363.98. Thus, as the explanation of damages do not comport with the actual compensatory damages sought, that is a reason to deny the default judgment application.

Third, and importantly, Plaintiffs have provided no evidence in support of their damages. For example, no paystubs have been provided to substantiate the claims (e.g., time period worked or hourly wage). As iterated by the appellate court in Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, “[t]he court must then compare the properly pled damages for each defaulting party with the evidence offered in the prove-up.” (Id. at p. 272-273.) Here, with no evidence provided, Plaintiffs have failed to meet the requirements of CCP section 585.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the application is denied without prejudice, notably for the lack of evidence. Plaintiff is to re-file its application material with each filing labeled. Additionally, the court requests a courtesy copy of the relevant papers to be provided (and filed) at least 16 court days before the hearing.