Judge Malcolm Mackey, Case BC719866 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: BC719866, Date: 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC719866 Hearing Date: May 4, 2023 Dept: 55

ESCOBAR AND MARTINEZ v. GOWER CAR WASH, et al. BC719866

Date of Hearing: 5/4/23, Dept. 55

#6: MOTION FOR PREJUDGMENT AND POSTJUDGMENT INTEREST ON WAGES OWED

Notice: Okay

MP: Plaintiffs Maximo Mora Escobar and Othoniel Juarez Martinez

RP: Defendants Gower Car Wash, Paul Mander, Sergio Venegas, Jaime Venegas

Summary

On August 31, 2018, Plaintiffs Maximo Mora Escobar (“Escobar”) and Othoniel Juarez Martinez (“Martinez”)(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) sued Gower Car Wash, as well as Paul Mander (“Mander”), Sergio Venegas (“S. Venegas”), and Jaime Venegas (“J. Venegas”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for: (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime wages; (3) failure to provide rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof; (4) failure to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; (5) failure to provide employment records upon request; (6) knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions; (7) failure to pay wages upon termination; and (8) violation of Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. In addition to compensatory damages, they sought penalties and interest. Between February 14, 2022, and February 17, 2022, the parties tried their case before a jury. The jury rendered its verdict on February 17, 2022 and awarded Escobar a total of $8,022 in damages and Martinez a total of $3,510 in damages.

MP Position

Plaintiffs moves for prejudgment and post-judgment interest on the grounds that they are entitled to it by statute, and the court, at trial, decided it would decide the prejudgment interest owed to Plaintiffs rather than the jury.

Opposition

In opposition, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs waived their right to claim prejudgment interest in this matter because they did not timely request prejudgment interest by way of a motion after the verdict, but before judgment was entered, and did not file a timely motion for new trial. Defendant states that Plaintiffs did not need to move for post-judgment interest because the court grants it automatically.

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs’ motion for prejudgment interest is DENIED. Plaintiffs’ motion for post-judgment interest is moot.

Background

Between February 14, 2022, and February 17, 2022, the parties tried their case before a jury. Prior to the start of trial, the court informed the parties that the issue of prejudgment interest would not be presented to the jury, the issue being better suited for the court to determine after the jury trial upon a proper showing by Plaintiffs. (Reply, Decl. Cabrera ¶ 3, Ex. “E.”) The jury rendered its verdict on February 17, 2022. Plaintiffs did not prevail on their causes of action for failure to pay overtime wages and failure to provide rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof. The jury awarded Escobar a total of $8,022 in damages and Martinez a total of $3,510 in damages.

On September 9, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the judgment, signed by the judge. On the same day, the court clerk filed the Notice of Entry of Judgment. The same day, the Clerk of the court also served Gower with the Notice of Entry of Judgment. (Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) at ¶1, Ex. A.) On October 11, 2022, Plaintiffs filed and served their own Notice of Entry of Judgment on Defendant. (RJN at ¶2, Ex. B.)

On October 11, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Memorandum of Costs, which included a claim for prejudgment interest. The court struck Plaintiffs’ prayer for prejudgment interest that was included in their Cost Memorandum as being an improper request for prejudgment interest. (RJN at ¶3, Ex. C.)

On April 10, 2023, Plaintiffs moved for prejudgment and post judgment interest. Defendants opposed the motion. Plaintiffs replied.

Request for Judicial Notice

In support of its opposition, Defendant requests the court take judicial notice of Notice of Entry of Judgment that Plaintiffs served on Defendant, dated September 9, 2022, Notice of Entry of Judgment that Plaintiffs served on Defendant, dated October 11, 2022, and the February 23, 2023 Minute Order.

Pursuant to section 452 of the Evidence Code a court may take judicial notice of the records of any court of this state. (Evid. Code § 452, subd. (d).) “Courts can take judicial notice of the existence, content and authenticity of public records and other specified documents, but do not take judicial notice of the truth of the factual matters asserted in those documents.” (Glaski v. Bank of America, National Association (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1090.)

Accordingly, Defendant’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED. The Court takes judicial notice of the notices of entry of judgment and the February 22, 2023, minute order.

Legal Standard

Requests for prejudgment interest under Civil Code section 3287 by a successful plaintiff must be made by way of motion prior to entry of judgment, or the request must be made in the form of a motion for new trial no later than the time allowed for filing such a motion. (N. Oakland Med. Clinic v. Rogers (1988) 65 Cal.App.4th 824, 831.) A judgment is “entered” when the original, signed by the judge, is filed with the court clerk. (See Code Civ. Pro., § 668.5; Weil & Brown, Cal Practice Guide: Civil Trials and Evidence (The Rutter Group 2022) ¶ 18.221.)

No authority exists regarding when, if at all, successful plaintiffs need to request post judgment interest.

Discussion

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs waived their right to claim prejudgment interest in this matter because they did not timely request prejudgment interest by way of a motion after the verdict, but before judgment was entered, and did not file a timely motion for new trial. The court agrees.

Defendant further states that Plaintiffs did not need to move for post-judgment interest and that the court grants it automatically. The court agrees.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for prejudgment interest is DENIED. Plaintiff’s motion for post-judgment interest is moot.