Judge: David S. Cunningham, Case: 23STCV27502, Date: 2025-03-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV27502    Hearing Date: March 13, 2025    Dept: 11

Alvarez (23STCV27502)

Tentative Ruling Re: Request for Default Judgment

Date:                         3/13/25

Time:                        9:30 am

Moving Party:          Calixto Alvarez and Cynthia Ramos (collectively “Plaintiffs”)

Opposing Party:       None

Department:             11

Judge:                       David S. Cunningham III

________________________________________________________________________

TENTATIVE RULING

The complaint does not allege a specific damages amount.  Plaintiffs’ counsel should be prepared to discuss this issue during oral arguments.

The Court is inclined to grant Plaintiffs’ request for default judgment with one modification.  The Court finds that Ramos’s recovery for her wage-statement claim should be reduced to $2,450.00.

BACKGROUND

This is a wage-and-hour action.

On February 7, 2025, the Court heard Plaintiffs’ request for default judgment against AllStaff HR, LLC dba Tacos Super Gallito (“AllStaff”) and ended up continuing the matter for supplemental briefing.

On March 3, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their supplemental brief.

Here, the Court considers whether the supplemental brief supports granting Plaintiffs’ request.

DISCUSSION

Rule 3.1800

Rule 3.1800 requires the following to be included in the default package:

(1) Except in unlawful detainer cases, a brief summary of the case identifying the parties and the nature of plaintiff's claim;

(2) Declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested;

(3) Interest computations as necessary;

(4) A memorandum of costs and disbursements;

(5) A declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant against whom judgment is sought;

(6) A proposed form of judgment;

(7) A dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under Code of Civil Procedure section 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment;

(8) Exhibits as necessary; and

(9) A request for attorney fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties.

(Id. at rule 3.1800.)

Plaintiffs’ second default package includes:

* the request for default judgment (form CIV-100);[1]

* Plaintiffs’ declarations;

* Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration;[2]

* the proposed judgment (form JUD-100); and

* proof of service.

Following the continuance, the second default package now also includes:

* a memorandum of points and authorities, including a brief case summary; and

* a dismissal of the Doe Defendants (form CIV-110).

All necessary papers now appear to be part of the record.

The Court notes that, on August 19, 2024, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to name Barranca Investment Inc. (“Barranca”) in place of Doe 1.  Plaintiffs need to explain whether they intend to continue the case against Barranca.  If not, Barranca should be dismissed in connection with the default judgment.

Substantive Merits

“The trial court may not require plaintiff to tender evidentiary facts supporting the complaint’s allegations of liability.”  (Edmon & Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civ. Procedure Before Trial (the Rutter Group June 2024 Update) ¶ 5:215, emphasis in original.)  Why?  Because “the defaulting defendant confesses the material allegations of the complaint.”  (Id. at ¶ 5:213.1.)  “The only evidentiary facts that have a place at a prove-up hearing are those concerning the damages alleged in the complaint[.]”  (Id. at ¶ 5:215.)  “Where a cause of action is stated . . . plaintiff merely needs to introduce evidence establishing a prima facie case for damages.”  (Id. at ¶ 5:213.1.)

For damages, Plaintiffs’ showing is based entirely on their own declarations.  (See Alvarez Decl., ¶¶ 2-10 [estimating amounts owed for overtime work, rest periods, deducted wages, and wage statements]; see also Ramos Decl., ¶¶ 2-8 [same minus overtime work].)  They do not attach supporting documentation.  Does this mean his showing is deficient?  Not necessarily. 

In Hernandez v. Mendoza (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 721, for example, the trial court found that a butcher failed to meet his burden to show the amount of overtime worked.  The Court of Appeal reversed because:

* the employer submitted false time records;

* the consequences of failing to keep accurate records “should fall on the employer, not the employee” (Hernandez, supra, 199 Cal.App.3d at 727);

* “[i]n such a situation, imprecise evidence by the employee can provide a sufficient basis for damages” (ibid.);

* the butcher testified that “on most days from November 1983 through July 1984 he was required to be on his employers’ premises from 8 a.m. until 9 p.m.” (ibid.); and

* the trial court was obligated “to draw whatever reasonable inferences it [could] from the [butcher’s testimony] where the employer [failed] to provide accurate information.”  (Id. at 728.)

The context here – default judgment – is different, but the rationale seems applicable.  AllStaff never appeared in the case, so Plaintiffs never had a chance to discover personnel files, timecards, and other documents reflecting days and hours worked.  Effectively, Plaintiffs lack access to accurate time records because of AllStaff’s failure to “come forward with evidence of the precise amount of work performed or with evidence to negative the reasonableness of the inference to be drawn from [Plaintiffs’] evidence.”  (Id. at 727.)  It follows that the Court “may . . . award damages to [Plaintiffs], even though the result be only approximate.”  (Ibid.)

Plaintiffs request:

* $21,645.00 for overtime wages (Alvarez);

* $8,658.00 for rest periods (Alvarez);

* $1,260.00 for deducted wages (Alvarez);

* $4,000.00 for wage statements (Alvarez);

* $1,125.00 for rest periods (Ramos);

* $600.00 for deducted wages (Ramos); and

* $4,000.00 for wage statements (Ramos).

With one exception, Plaintiffs’ declarations and estimates tend to support these amounts.  The exception is Ramos’s request for $4,000.00 for wage statements, which appears excessive given that she only worked 25 pay periods.

Moreover, the Court sees a potential discrepancy in form CIV-100.  The form states that the amount demanded in the complaint is $62,933.00, yet the complaint does not allege a specific damages amount.  Does the specific amount need to be alleged?  Do Plaintiffs need to amend the complaint to allege the specific amount.  If so, what impact would amending have on default judgment?

The supplemental brief does not answer these questions.  The Court will ask Plaintiffs’ counsel to discuss this issue at the hearing.

Tentatively, the Court finds that the request for default judgment should be granted and that the following amounts should be awarded.

* $21,645.00 for overtime wages (Alvarez);

* $8,658.00 for rest periods (Alvarez);

* $1,260.00 for deducted wages (Alvarez);

* $4,000.00 for wage statements (Alvarez);

* $1,125.00 for rest periods (Ramos);

* $600.00 for deducted wages (Ramos);

* $2,450.00 for wage statements (Ramos);[3]

* $2,148.66 for attorney fees (see Jarvis Decl., ¶ 5);

* $2,854.50 for costs (see id. at ¶ 6); and

* $7,946.33 for interest.  (See id. at ¶ 7.)[4]