Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 22PSCV00461, Date: 2025-05-19 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: May 19, 2025    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

(1)   Plaintiff Kim’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

(2)   Plaintiff Lee’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

Plaintiffs’ calculations are unclear/appear incorrect and Plaintiffs are not entitled to liquidated damages.

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.

On April 17, 2024, the court denied the application for various reasons including (i) numerous duplicate filings, (ii) an unclear amount of damages, and (iii) insufficient evidence.[3]

On October 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant application material.

Discussion

Plaintiff Kim seeks entry of default judgment against Sungmin Jeon in the amount of $131, 331.33, which includes $91,363.98 in damages, $36,438.26 in prejudgment interest, $2,717.28 in attorney fees, and $811.81 in costs.  Plaintiff Lee seeks a total judgment of $177,617.60, which is comprised of $125,209.18 in damages, prejudgment interest, attorney fees, and costs.

Here, the court finds two defects with the applications.

First, certain calculations are unclear. For example, as for meal break premiums, Kim calculates his as follows: base hourly rate of $15.58 multiplied by 52.71 weeks multiplied by 6 days per week. The calculation should instead be the base hourly rate of $15.58 multiplied by the total hours worked per week multiplied by the number of weeks worked. The same confusion with the calculations applies to the rest break premiums and tip conversions.

Second, both Plaintiffs seek liquidated damages without showing they are entitled to such. Liquidated damages are intended to provide a measure of damages that would otherwise be difficult to ascertain. The law requires that liquidated damages represent a reasonable estimate of damages at the time of contract formation. Civ. Code, § 1671, subd. (b). It also requires that, at the time the liquidated damages were determined, it was impracticable or extremely difficult to determine what the actual damages would be in the event of a breach of contract. (Ibid.). Here, there is no indication that a contract between the parties provides for liquidated damages and, even if so, damages are ascertainable, hence the very computations Plaintiffs have provided. With that, Plaintiffs are not entitled to liquidated damages, which would change the amount of judgment sought.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the default judgment applications are denied without prejudice; Plaintiffs are to file their new application material (that squarely addresses the foregoing) at least 16 court days before the hearing.