Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 22BBCV00498, Date: 2024-09-06 Tentative Ruling


Counsel who wish to submit on the tentative ruling may do so by emailing BURDeptB@lacourt.org

PLEASE WRITE THE CASE NUMBER AND PARTY YOU REPRESENT.  YOU MAY ONLY SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF THE PARTY YOU REPRESENT.  YOU MAY NOT SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PARTY. Counsel are directed to cc all other counsel if you are submitting on the tentative ruling.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR NEED CLARIFICATION ON THE TENTATIVE, YOU MUST APPEAR AND ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS TO THE COURT.

IF BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE RULING, THE TENTATIVE RULING THEN BECOMES THE ORDER OF THE COURT ON THE MOTION DATE AND NO APPEARANCES ARE NECESSARY.


THERE WILL BE NO RESPONSES TO ANY INQUIRIES SUBMITTED THROUGH THIS SITE.

Warning regarding electronic appearances:    All software for remote or electronic appearances is subject to malfunction based on system weakness and human error, which can originate from any of the multiple parties participating each morning. The seamless operation of the Court’s electronic appearance software is dependent on numerous inconstant and fluctuating factors that may impact whether you, or other counsel or the Court itself can be heard in a particular case. Not all these factors are within the control of the courtroom staff. For example, at times, the system traps participants in electronic purgatories where they cannot be heard and where the courtroom staff is not aware of their presence. If you call the courtroom, please be respectful of the fact that a court hearing is going on, and that the courtroom staff is doing their best to use an imperfect system. If it is truly important to you to be heard, please show up to the courtroom in the normal way. Parking is free or reasonable in Burbank.


THANK YOU!




Case Number: 22BBCV00498    Hearing Date: September 6, 2024    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

 

 

Nelson Hernandez, et al.,

                        Plaintiffs,

            v.

 

To your home delivery, inc., et al.,

 

                        Defendants.

 

  Case No.:  22BBCV00498

 

  Hearing Date:  September 6, 2024

 

 [TENTATIVE] order RE:

Motion to amend the dismissal or, in the alternative, set aside dismissal and reinstate case and motion for order for entry of judgment pursuant to signed stipulation of parties

 

 

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiffs Nelson Hernandez (“Hernandez”) and Gonzalo Perez (“Perez”) allege that Defendant To Your Home Delivery, Inc. (“Home Delivery”) is a delivery and logistics company that is owned and/or managed by Defendant Ena Erazo Tubbs (“Tubbs”).  Plaintiffs allege that they were hired by Defendants as drivers and that Defendants were subjected to policies and practices that violated their wage and hour rights under the Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.   

            The complaint, filed July 8, 2022, alleges causes of action for: (1) failure to pay overtime wages; (2) failure to pay minimum wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to provide rest breaks; (5) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (6) failure to pay all wages at termination; (7) failure to reimburse business expenses; (8) unfair business practices (Bus. & Profs. Code, § 17200, et seq.); (9) retaliation in violation of Labor Code, § 1102.5; and (10) wrongful termination.   

B.     Relevant Background and Motion on Calendar

On October 9, 2023, the Court entered the Stipulation and Order re Retention of Jurisdiction pursuant to CCP § 664.6.  The parties jointly stipulated that Plaintiffs and Defendants reached a settlement and that they requested that the Court retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement pursuant to CCP § 664.6, even after dismissal of the matter.  The parties signed the agreement on September 26 and 27, 2023.  The Court entered the order on October 9, 2023. 

            On October 10, 2023, the entire action of all parties and all causes of action was dismissed with prejudice. 

On July 25, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the dismissal or, in the alternative to vacate the dismissal, reinstate the case, and for entry of judgment pursuant to the signed stipulation of the parties.  The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief. 

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiffs move to set aside the dismissal entered on October 10, 2023, have the case reinstated, and for entry of judgment against Defendants pursuant to the signed Stipulation for Entry of Judgment.  

            Plaintiffs provide the parties’ Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, which was fully executed on September 27, 2023.  (Mot., Ex. A [Settlement Agreement].)  The Settlement Agreement states that Defendants, jointly and severally, shall pay Plaintiffs the sum of $40,000.12 payable in certain installments.  (Settlement Agreement, § 2.1.)  The parties also agreed that concurrently with executing the Settlement Agreement, they will also execute a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants in the amount of $60,000, plus interest at the legal rate, less any amounts paid pursuant to paragraph 2.  (Id., §3.)  Upon default by Defendants, Plaintiffs shall give notice of the default and to cure the default within 30 days, but if the default is not cured, then Plaintiffs may request judgment to be entered pursuant to the Stipulation without further notice or delay.  (Id., §4.)  The Stipulation for Entry of Judgment (“Stipulation”) is attached as Exhibit B to the motion and is executed by the parties.  (Mot., Ex. B [Stipulation].)

            Plaintiffs argue that Defendants failed to make payments as agreed under the Settlement Agreement.  Thus, Plaintiffs seek entry of the stipulated judgment.  Plaintiffs acknowledge that they made a clerical error in their request for dismissal by failing to check the “Other” box to indicate that the Court had retained jurisdiction, such that the clerk rejected Plaintiffs’ attempt to file the stipulated judgment on March 20, 2024.  However, Plaintiffs requested that the Court retain jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to CCP § 664.6, which the Court entered on October 9, 2023, before the dismissal was entered on October 10, 2024.  Thus, the Court agreed to retain jurisdiction of this matter following dismissal and will enter the relief requested by Plaintiffs.

            The Court is inclined to grant the motion, but the motion is not accompanied by the declaration of John F. Litwin as represented in the caption, notice of motion, and the memorandum of points and authorities.  Plaintiffs are ordered to provide a copy of the declaration of Mr. Litwin and to state the amount that Defendants have paid towards the Settlement Agreement, and what amount is remaining and owing (or an account balance).  As such, the Court will continue the hearing on the motion. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs Nelson Hernandez and Gonzalo Perez’s motion to set aside the dismissal and enter judgment is continued to September 13, 2024 at 8:30 a.m.  Plaintiffs are ordered to file the declaration of John F. Litwin, including information about the balance due and owing on the Settlement Agreement, by the end of the business day on September 9, 2024.  No further briefing may be permitted.  

Plaintiffs shall provide notice of this order.

 

 

DATED: September 6, 2024                                                  ___________________________

                                                                                          John J. Kralik

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court