Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22CMCV01322, Date: 2024-03-19 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22CMCV01322 Hearing Date: March 19, 2024 Dept: A
22CMCV01322
Michael Brian Smith v. Seiko Epson Corporation
Tuesday,
March 19, 2024, at 8:30 a.m.
[TENTATIVE]
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
I.
ALLEGATIONS
The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)
alleges that Plaintiff’s staffing agency, (“Volt”) assigned Plaintiff to work at
Seiko Epson Corporation (“Seiko”). Plaintiff alleges that he was racially
profiled, targeted, and harassed by “Rodger,” a manager, who also defamed
Plaintiff’s reputation by calling Volt and demanding that Plaintiff be removed
from a second work assignment upon Plaintiff’s termination from Seiko. (FAC
¶ 5.) Plaintiff alleges claims for “defamation under the
vicarious liability doctrine, willful and wanton conduct, and punitive damages.”
On October 11, 2023, the clerk entered
default against “Seiko Epson Corporation.” (Def.
Entry 11/22/23.)
II.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Court takes judicial notice of its
records pursuant to Evidence Code, section 452(d), which reflect that on
January 5, 2024, the Court reviewed and denied Plaintiff’s request for judgment
against Seiko, which appeared to be a request for judgment by default. (M.O.
1/5/24.) Plaintiff then submitted a
proposed order styled as a “response” to the Court’s January 5 order which the
clerk rejected on February 15, 2024. (Response
1/16/24.)
Plaintiff personally served Seiko Epson
Corporation on October 10, 2023. (POS
11/6/23.)
On March 1, 2024, Epson America, Inc.,
erroneously named Seiko Epson Corporation, (“Epson”) filed its answer.
III.
ARGUMENTS
On February 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed an
Amended Motion for Judgment with evidence to substantiate his claim for compensatory
and punitive damages.
In opposition, Epson argues that it
contacted Plaintiff previously to explain why Epson did not answer the amended
pleading, namely because Plaintiff did not name the correct entity, and the
reasons why Plaintiff’s claims were not viable. Epson argues that while
Plaintiff has not properly effected service of all previously filed documents
on the proper defendant, Epson answered the amended pleading in the interest of
judicial economy.
Epson argues that since it answered the
complaint, Plaintiff’s request is rendered moot. Plaintiff did not cure the
defects in the pleading as ordered by the Court. The default judgment package
previously submitted was also defective.
In reply, Plaintiff argues that his
claims are viable based on the allegations of the complaint and that he is
entitled to judgment.
IV.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff has not provided relevant
authority permitting a default judgment against Epson, who has answered the amended
pleading. Plaintiff has not previously obtained entry of default against Epson.
As Epson filed an answer, Plaintiff is precluded from obtaining entry of
default or a default judgment against Epson. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 585 subd. (a) [entry of default is
proper where the defendant has been served and failed to answer.]
While the Court recognizes that Plaintiff
is appearing without the benefit of counsel, all California Rules of Court including
those pertaining to the format and filing of motions, apply equally to all
parties. (Cal.
Rules of Court, Rules 3.1113 and 3.1114.)
A litigant appearing in propria persona "is entitled to the same, but no
greater, consideration than other litigants and attorneys [citations]. Further,
the in propria persona litigant is held to the same restrictive rules of
procedure as an attorney.” (Burnete
v. La Casa Dana Apartments (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1267.)
Epson correctly observes that the Court
previously determined that the amended pleading was not adequately alleged to permit
judgment by default. (M.O.
1/5/24.) However, any defects in the amended pleading are better
raised by Epson by way of other dispositive motion.
V.
CONCLUSION
As Plaintiff has not provided any basis
for issuing a judgment against an answering defendant at this stage, Plaintiff’s
request is DENIED.