Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 18STCV05654, Date: 2025-01-09 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SMCDEPT71@lacourt.org. Do not click on the email address, either copy and paste it or type it into your email. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.

            If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect. If the moving party fails to appear and/or submit to the Court’s tentative ruling, the Court will take the matter off calendar.

            Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.

If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.

Plaintiff Jose Machuca’s unopposed motion to amend the judgment in this matter is granted.

Plaintiff Jose Machuca (“Machuca”) (“Plaintiff”) moves unopposed for this Court to amend the judgment in this matter entered against Defendants Turner Fiberfill Inc. (“Turner Fiberfill”) and Baron HR Inc. (“Baron HR”) (collectively, “Defendants”). (Notice of Motion, pg. 2.)[1] Plaintiff moves pursuant to C.C.P. §§128, 177, 187, 410.50, and this Court’s inherent equitable powers to do justice and carry its jurisdiction into effect. (Notice of Motion, pg. 2.) Plaintiff moves on the grounds that the original judgment entered in this matter does not reflect the additional $34,080.27 owed pursuant to the escalator clause in the Parties’ settlement agreement. (Notice of Motion, pg. 2.) Plaintiff argues that although Turner Fiberfill paid its portion of the settlement, including its percentage share of the escalator amount, Baron HR has failed to make any payment of the judgment, thereby requiring Plaintiff to move to enforce the judgment. (Notice of Motion, pg. 2.) Plaintiff argues that prior to enforcing the judgment, the judgment must be amended to reflect the payments already made by Turner Fiberfill and also the increased escalator amount. (Notice Motion, pg. 2.)

On or about August 8, 2018, Plaintiff filed a letter with the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) and provided a copy to Defendants via certified mail alleging (1) overtime violations; (2) minimum wage violations; (3) meal period violations; (4) rest period violations; (5) timing of payment during employment violations; (6) pay check stub violations; (7) record keeping violations; and (8) timing of final payment upon termination violations. (Decl. of Payne ¶2.)

On or about November 20, 2018, Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint alleging ten causes of action: (1) Retaliation; (2) Wrongful Termination; (3) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; (4) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; (5) Failure to Provide Rest Periods; (6) Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (7) Failure to Provide Accurate and Itemized Wage Statements; (8) Failure to Timely Pay All Wages Due Upon Separation of Employment; (9) Unfair Business Practices Pursuant to Business and Professions Code §17200 et seq.; and (10) Private Attorney General Act, Labor Code § 2698 et seq. (“PAGA”).

On or about March 30, 2022, the Parties attended a mediation with Jeffrey Krivis, Esq. and agreed to resolve the matter for a Gross Settlement Amount of Two Hundred Forty Thousand Dollars ($240,000.00). (Decl. of Payne ¶4.) On or about July 12, 2022, the Parties finalized and fully executed the settlement, the material terms of which are encompassed in the Settlement Agreement and Release (“Settlement Agreement”). (Decl. of Payne ¶5.) At the time the Parties entered into the Settlement, Defendants represented there were 8,845 pay periods at issue. (Decl. of Payne ¶5.) The Settlement Agreement provided that if the actual number of pay periods by the Effective Date exceeds 8,845 by more than 10%, Defendants agreed to increase the total Settlement Payment proportionally. (Decl. of Payne ¶5.)

On September 9, 2022, the Parties filed a Joint Stipulation for Order Approving PAGA Settlement. (Decl. of Payne ¶6.) On November 3, 2022, the Court sign the Order Approving PAGA Settlement. (Decl. of Payne ¶6, Exh. A.)

Following the approval, the Settlement Administrator received data from Defendants and determined that there were six hundred thirteen (613) Aggrieved Employees who worked eleven thousand eight hundred seventy-three (11,873) Pay Periods during the Covered Period from November 20, 2017, to November 2, 2022. (Decl. of Payne ¶7, Exh. B.) Based on this evaluation, the Settlement Administrator determined that the Escalator Clause was triggered, increasing the Gross Settlement Amount from $240,000.00 to $274,080.27. (Decl. of Payne ¶7, Exh. B.) On November 9, 2022, the Settlement Administrator received a payment of $115,000.00 from Turner Fiberfill. (Decl. of Payne ¶7, Exh. B.) On September 8, 2023, the Settlement Administrator received a check from Turner Fiberfill to Plaintiff for his individual settlement and enhancement, for a total of $140,000.00 paid by Turner Fiberfill. (Decl. of Payne ¶7, Exh. B.) However, Baron HR has not made any payments to the Settlement Administrator. (Decl. of Payne ¶7, Exh. B.)

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on September 30, 2024. As of the date of this hearing no opposition has been filed.

“Section 187 grants every court the power and authority to carry its jurisdiction into effect. [Citation.] This includes the authority to amend a judgment to add an alter ego of an original judgment debtor, and thereby make the additional judgment debtor liable on the judgment. [Citation.]” (Highland Springs Conference & Training Center v. City of Banning (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 267, 280, internal citations omitted.)

“Section 187 contemplates amending a judgment by noticed motion. [Citations.] The court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing on a motion to amend a judgment, but may rule on the motion based solely on declarations and other written evidence. [Citation.]” (Id., internal citations omitted.)

Plaintiff’s motion is granted. Here, the Court has jurisdiction over the matter, since the matter remains pending and has not yet been dismissed. It does not appear that other statutes address the situation. Indeed, although C.C.P. §473 does have a provision for amending judgments, it appears to only apply to judgments that are “against” the moving party. (See C.C.P. §473(b).) Because the judgment was against Defendants Turner Fiberfill and Baron HR, the statute does not apply to Plaintiff, the moving party.

Similarly, C.C.P. §663 only applies where there is an incorrect legal or factual basis underlying the judgment, which are not present here.

Defendant Baron HR’s conduct makes clear that it has no intent of paying the funds owed on the judgment absent an enforcement of the judgment. The judgment must be amended to reflect the total amounts owed on the Settlement Agreement. Therefore, pursuant to C.C.P. §187, an amended judgment must be filed to account for the additional Escalator funds before it can enforce the judgment against Baron HR.

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to amend the judgment to account for the additional Escalator funds is granted.

[1] The Court notes Plaintiff’s notice of motion erroneously names Baron HR, Inc. as Baron HR, LLC. To avoid confusion, the Court identifies Baron HR, Inc., as it is named throughout this action.