Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 20PSCV00659, Date: 2023-12-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20PSCV00659    Hearing Date: December 4, 2023    Dept: K

Plaintiff Sylvia Ramos’ Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

Background   

Plaintiff Sylvia Ramos (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:

Plaintiff worked as an enrollment specialist for Defendant Calix Drugs Pharmacy, Inc. (“Defendant”) from August 8, 2018-December 17, 2018. Plaintiff was terminated after she complained about unpaid wages.

On October 7, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendant and Does 1-50 for:

1.                  Discrimination on the Basis of Participation in Protected Conduct in Violation of Gov. Code § 12940 et seq.

2.                  Failure to Prevent Discrimination in Violation of California Government Code § 12940(k)

3.                  Retaliation in Violation of Gov. Code § 12940(h)

4.                  Wrongful Termination

5.                  Failure To Pay Minimum Wages And Overtime In Violation of Cal. Labor Code § 204 et seq.

6.                  Violation of Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.

On June 14, 2022, counsel for Defendant’s motion to be relieved as counsel was granted; at that time, the court set an Order to Show Cause Re: Representation of Corporation for August 17, 2022.

On August 17, 2022, the court set an Order to Show Cause Re: Why the Answer Should Not Be Stricken for October 4, 2022. On October 4, 2022, the court ordered Defendant’s answer stricken.

On October 6, 2022, Defendant’s default was entered.

An Order to Show Cause Re: Default Judgment is set for August 25, 2023.

Discussion

Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is denied without prejudice. The following defects are noted:

1.                  Plaintiff purports to assert FEHA claims, yet has failed to provide the court with any information establishing that she was part of a protected class or that she engaged in any protected conduct under FEHA. Plaintiff has alleged that “she suffered a work-related injury which resulted in a disability” (Complaint, ¶ 50). This statement, however, is nowhere set forth or explained in Plaintiff’s declaration. Paragraph 25 of the complaint also recites that Government Code § 12940 prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of disability, yet Plaintiff has not attested that she is disabled.

2.                  Plaintiff seeks $221,280 in damages, which is comprised as follows: $53.760.00 in back pay, plus $96 in unpaid wages, plus $3,840.00 in waiting time penalties, plus $163,584.00 in non-economic, emotional distress damages. Plaintiff has now attached text messages between Plaintiff and her supervisor, Paul Pino (“Pino”). Plaintiff appears to contend that she was not paid for her full work hours on 12/3-7/18, and 12/10/23 and that this resulted in a total of 6 unpaid work hours.[1] Plaintiff texted Pino that on 12/3-5/18 she “did 12-4pm and 5-8pm from home total of 8 hours,” that on 12/6/18 she worked “12pm-4pm[,] 5pm-8:30pm-home total of 8 hrs and 30 min[,]” that on 12/7/18 she worked “12pm-4pm[,] 5pm-8pm-home total of 8” and that on 12/10/18 she “worked 12pm-4pm and 5pm-8pm from home. Should only be short 5min.” It is unclear to the court how Plaintiff was shorted. With respect to the 12/3/18-12/5/18 dates, 12-4 pm is 4 hours and 5-8 pm is 3 hours for a total of 7, not 8 hours. As to 12/6/18, 12-4pm is again 4 hours and 5-8:30pm is 7.5 hours, not 8.5 hours. Finally, as to 12/10/18, 12-4 pm is 4 hours and 5-8 pm is 3 hours for a total of 7, not 8 hours. Pino apparently took a screenshot of Plaintiff’s hours from 12/3/18-12/14/18 and forwarded this to Plaintiff. (Plaintiff Decl., ¶ 7, Exh. A, p. 4). Plaintiff is requested to explain to the court how the screenshot is inaccurate and/or how she was allegedly underpaid. Plaintiff was requested to provide the court with a copy of her pay stub which would reflect that she was “shorted” payment for six hours of work during a pay period ending on or around December 11, 2018. Plaintiff has failed to do so.

3.                  Plaintiff is requested to provide the court with authority supporting her request for back pay.

4.                  Plaintiff seeks back pay for the following periods: December 17, 2018-February 2019, January 2020-March 2020, May 2020-April 2021 and June 2021-January 2021. (Plaintiff Decl., ¶ 14). Plaintiff concedes that she was employed from at February 2019-January 2020 with a company called Paratus but subsequently states that she “again had difficulty finding substantially similar employment,” apparently “due to the Covid-19 Pandemic.” (Id.) It is unclear to the court why Defendant would be financially responsible for Plaintiff’s inability to find substantially similar employment after she apparently secured same at Paratus. Further, Plaintiff states that she had been out of work for approximately 84 weeks, that “[d]uring these times, [she] would look for work online and would ultimately find some jobs” and that she would “sometimes. . . earn less than [she] did while working for Defendant at some of [her] jobs.” (Id.) Plaintiff does not provide the court with any information as to the nature, duration and financial compensation of these jobs.

5.                  Plaintiff fails to provide the court with any information regarding how her general damages were calculated.