Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 24STCV00702, Date: 2025-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV00702    Hearing Date: January 23, 2025    Dept: 40

24STCV00702 Angel Mejia v. Luz Moi, Inc., et al.   

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

I.        BACKGROUND

        This action arises from wage and hour violations of the Labor Code, recovery of civil penalties, and a claim for unfair business practices.  The court entered default against Luz Moi, Inc., Fashion District Fulfillment Corp and CNS. Services Corp., and Juan Carlos Robles. Plaintiff seeks judgment against these defaulting parties. All remaining Defendants have been dismissed.

II.      DISCUSSION

       A defendant in default is said to “confess” the material facts alleged by the plaintiff, and all well pleaded facts are deemed admissions. Damages may only be awarded for a “well-pled cause of action, and to that end, the complaint must be examined." (Carlsen v. Koivumaki (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 879, 899–900; Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 281.)

       A statutory action for unpaid wages “does not state a cause of action against the employer unless it alleges the amount of wages accrued and unpaid at the time the employment relationship terminated.” (Oppenheimer v. Moebius (1957) 151 Cal.App.2d 818, 819–820.) Merely alleging that Plaintiff sustained damage for Defendant’s failure to pay the wages earned is “meaningless in the absence of any allegation as to the amount of wages due plaintiff.” (Id.) The court is not required to give any effect to the allegation of damage in the absence of alleged facts showing liability in damages, nor to proceed further in the action in the face of the refusal of plaintiff to plead essential jurisdictional facts.” (Id.)

       The first through third and the fifth and sixth causes of action for Labor Code violations all fail to allege any amount of wages due and are not well pleaded. The fourth cause of action for a penalty arising from Defendants’ failure to provide accurate wage statements is capped at $4,000, which is alleged in the complaint and is well pleaded.

III.    CONCLUSION

       Given the foregoing defects, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s Request for Court Judgment on the complaint as alleged. If Plaintiff elects to amend the complaint, Plaintiff is required to serve Defendants with the amended complaint because a “defaulting defendant is entitled to be served when the amendment is as to a matter of substance and not a mere matter of form . . . The reason for this rule is plain. A defendant is entitled to an opportunity to be heard upon the allegations of the complaint on which judgment is sought against him [citations omitted].” (Engebretson & Co. v. Harrison (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 436, 440.) The effect of the amendment is to “open up” the default, and unless Defendants are served, no judgment can properly be entered. (Thompson v. Cook (1942) 20 Cal.2d 564, 568.)