Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 21PSCV00410, Date: 2024-04-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21PSCV00410    Hearing Date: April 16, 2024    Dept: K

Plaintiff Katie Salazar’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

Background   

Plaintiff Katie Salazar (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: Plaintiff was employed by Sm. Kan, Inc, dba 101 Sushi Roll & Grill (“101 Sushi”) as a food runner from in or around March 2019 to on or about July 5, 2020. Throughout Plaintiff’s employment at 101 Sushi, Plaintiff was subjected to discriminatory and harassing behavior (and ultimately wrongfully terminated) by reason of her pregnancy and/or gender. 101 Sushi failed to provide Plaintiff with meal and rest breaks and with accurate and itemized wage statements. 101 Sushi also failed to pay Plaintiff her final wages.

On April 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants 101 Sushi, Roy Doe and Does 1-25 for:

1.                  Pregnancy Discrimination

2.                  Pregnancy Harassment

3.                  Failure to Accommodate Pregnancy

4.                  Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process of Accommodation of a Pregnancy

5.                  Gender-Based Discrimination

6.                  Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment

7.                  Failure to Correct and Remedy Discrimination and Harassment

8.                  Retaliation for Engaging in a Protected Activity

9.                  Retaliation for Complaints of Discrimination and Harassment

10.              Failure to Pay Wages Due

11.              Failure to Provide Meal and Rest Breaks

12.              Failure to Provide Itemized and Accurate Wage Statements

13.              Waiting Time Penalties

14.              Violation of Labor Code § 1198.5

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

16.              Wrongful Termination

17.              Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

18.              Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

On May 27, 2022, 101 Sushi’s default was entered.

An Order to Show Cause Re: Default Judgment is set for April 16, 2024.

Discussion

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

1.                  Plaintiff has provided a default prove-up application via piecemeal submissions. The court will not consider any piecemeal submissions going forward. Any future default prove-up application must be full and complete.

2.                  Plaintiff previously attested that “[o]ther employees that requested off even for the same day were regularly allowed to take them off” and that “other workers asked to be placed on furlough due to COVID-19 and could keep their positions and not work.” (Plaintiff’s Decl., ¶ 8.) Plaintiff has not provided evidence supporting the above statements.

3.                  Plaintiff has attested that, in or around early July 2020, she asked her manager Roy for the day off on the fourth of July and that, in response, Roy “became furious and accused [her] of refusing to work.” (Id., ¶ 6). It appears, from this paragraph, that Plaintiff communicated to Roy that she needed that day off because of childcare issues. It does not appear that the issue of Plaintiff’s pregnancy came up during that time. There does not appear to be anything in Plaintiff’s text communications with her manager, moreover, that suggest that Plaintiff was being discriminated against on the basis of her pregnancy.

4.                  Plaintiff has now reduced the $950,000.00 originally requested in general damages to $100,000.00; however, she continues to provide scant support for same (see above). Further, Plaintiff’s request for nearly $100,000.00 in general damages “for pain and suffering and the emotional distress [she] endured and continue[s] to endure” (Plaintiff’s Decl., ¶ 17) appears contradicted by Plaintiff’s purported “concession” of her sixteenth and seventeenth causes of action “due to lack of evidence” (Gould Decl., ¶¶ 57 and 58.)

5.                  Plaintiff has not provided an explanation for the unspecified “administrative costs.” Plaintiff is to provide an itemization of the $1,871.05 in clerk’s filing fees.

6.                  Attorneys fees should be reduced in accordance with Local Rule 3.214.