Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22SMCV01486, Date: 2024-05-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV01486    Hearing Date: May 1, 2024    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff James Bram (“Plaintiff”) requests for default judgment against Defendants Xpressguards and Xpressguards LLC (“Defendants”) in the amount of $125,634.45, which is composed of damages in the amount of $100,000; prejudgment interest in the amount of $24,514.05; and costs in the amount of $1,120.40.

            a.         Damages 

            Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges fifteen causes of action for (1) Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (2) Failure to Provide Rest Breaks; (3) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; (4) Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; (5) Failure to Pay All Wages Owed; (6) Failure to Pay Waiting Time Penalties; (7) Failure to Provide Complete Access to Employee Personnel File and Payroll Records in Violation of Labor Code §§ 226, 432, and 1198.5; (8) Retaliation in violation of FEHA; (9) Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5; (10) Retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 98.6; (11) Retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 6310; (12) Failure to Prevent Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; (13) Unfair Business Practices: (14) Wrongful Termination in violation of FEHA; (15) Wrongful Termination in violation of public policy. 

            Defendants were served with a copy of the summons, complaint, and statement of damages via substitute service on January 26, 2023. Default was entered against Defendants on October 12, 2023.  Plaintiff has requested dismissal of the Doe defendants in the body of his brief, but has not otherwise filed a request for dismissal. 

            Plaintiff’s Statement of Damages seeks $150,000 in damages, composed of general damages of $50,000 for emotional distress, and special damages of $100,000 for loss of earnings ($75,000) and for loss of future earning capacity ($25,000).  Plaintiff’s Statement of Damages also sets forth a claim of $20,000 in punitive damages. Therefore, the amount of damages Plaintiff seeks is not in excess of those specified in the statement of damages.  (Yeung v. Soos (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 576, 582 [“a default judgment is void when the damages are in excess of the damages specified in the complaint or the statement of damages”].) 

            Plaintiff supports his request for damages with the Declaration of James Abram.  With regard to the requested damages, the Abram Declaration indicates:

12. After my termination, I was out of work for approximately a month and a half while I searched for a new job. I was able to find a temporary job, but that job fell through shortly after I found it. During this time, I was very worried and anxious, as my inability to find a steady job after XpressGuards was affecting my livelihood.

13. I currently work for Contemporary Services Corporation (“CSC”) in event security but it is a seasonal job and still does not provide a steady paycheck. I also try to supplement my income by working security at a club on weekends and am in the process of obtaining my firearm license so that I can apply for armed security positions, which would pay more and provide a steady income.

14. XpressGuards’ treatment towards me caused me to suffer a lot of trauma and emotional distress. Since my termination, I have experienced anxiety, worry, and loss of sleep.

(Abram Dec. ¶¶ 12-14.)  However, Plaintiff has not provided specific evidentiary support for the requested $100,000 – what portion of that amount constitutes loss of earnings versus what portion constitutes emotional distress – nor has Plaintiff substantiated the request for lost earnings with figures demonstrating how much Plaintiff earned with Xpressguards versus the shortfall compared with how much Plaintiff is currently earning.

            Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not sufficiently substantiated the request for $100,000 in damages.   

c.         Prejudgment Interest 

            Plaintiff has not provided an interest computation.  Therefore, the Court cannot award Plaintiff’s requested interest. 

            d.         Costs 

            Plaintiff requests $1,120.40 in costs composed of $571.30 in filing fees and $549.10 in process server fees. (MC-010.) Plaintiff’s request for costs is granted as Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a)(4).)

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is denied without prejudice. 

            Further, the Court continues the Order to Show Cause re Entry of Default Judgment to July 1, 2024 at 8:30 A.M. in Department 207, and Plaintiff shall file an amended request for entry of default judgment in conformance with the Court’s ruling on or before June 10, 2024. 

            The Clerk of the Court shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling.

DATED:  May 1, 2024                                    ________________________________

                                                                        Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                        Judge of the Superior Court