Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 19STCV13450, Date: 2023-07-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV13450    Hearing Date: March 19, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Plaintiff Ivan Mendoza          

RESPONDING PARTY:       n/a

Request for Court Judgment by Default Against Defendant Soon Pill Kim

Plaintiff Ivan Mendoza (“Plaintiff”) requests that the court enter judgment by default against defendant Soon Pill Kim (“Defendant”) in the total amount of $353,421.59, consisting of (1) $1,500 in damages, (2) $138,551.04 in interest, (3) $5,435.55 in costs, and (4) $207,935 in attorney’s fees.  (Request for Court Judgment filed Mar. 4, 2024, CIV-100 (“Mar. 4, 2024 CIV-100”), ¶ 2, subd. (a).) 

Plaintiff previously requested that the court enter default judgment against Defendant in this amount.  (Request for Court Judgment filed December 20, 2023, CIV-100, ¶ 2.)  On January 5, 2024, the court issued an order (1) finding, inter alia, that Plaintiff did not submit (i) evidence proving damages in the requested amount of $1,500 or (ii) a case summary explaining the basis of the requested damages, and (2) denied Plaintiff’s request for default judgment, without prejudice to Plaintiff’s filing amended default judgment documents that cure the defects described in the order.  (Jan. 5, 2024 Order, pp. 1:23-27, 2:13-15.)  Thereafter, on March 4, 2024 and March 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed the pending request for default judgment and supporting documents.

The court notes several defects with Plaintiff’s request for default judgment.

First, as set forth above, Plaintiff requests $1,500 in damages against Defendant.  (Request for Court Judgment (CIV-100), filed March 4, 2024, ¶ 2, subd. (a); proposed Judgment, lodged March 4, 2024, ¶ 6, subd. (a)(1).)  However, this request is inconsistent with the statements made in Plaintiff’s supporting memorandum of points and authorities.  Specifically, Plaintiff has also stated the following:      (1) Defendant “is liable to Plaintiff in the amount awarded to Plaintiff against [non-defaulted defendant Orange Trim, Inc.] by the Court: $301,489.00” pursuant to agency law, the alter ego doctrine, and as a joint employer; (2) Plaintiff requests that the court enter judgment in his favor and against Defendant “on Causes of Action 1-3, and award $94,320.00 in past lost earnings pursuant to those claims[;]” (3) Plaintiff “believes he is entitled to $400,000.00 as a reasonable and common-sense award for his past and future physical pain, mental suffering, and emotional distress.”  (Pl. Memo, pp. 2:28-3:4, 6:22-24, 7:18-19, 11:10-13 [requesting $301,489 in wage and hour damages and penalties, $20,000 in civil penalties, $94,320 in economic damages, and $400,000 in non-economic damages].)  Thus, Plaintiff’s request for default judgment made on the mandatory “Request for Court Judgment” form is unclear and inconsistent with Plaintiff’s other default judgment documents.  Moreover, Plaintiff does not appear to have explained the basis for his request for damages in the amount of $1,500.

Second, the prejudgment interest calculations appear to be incorrect.  The “Declaration re: Interest” filed by Plaintiff on March 4, 2024 states that it is based on the damages amount of $207,935, which (1) was not requested in Plaintiff’s Request for Court Judgment, and (2) is inconsistent with the explanation and calculations set forth in Plaintiff’s supporting memorandum.  (Declaration of Interest, MC-030 filed March 4, 2024, p. 1; Memo., p. 8:5-10.)

Third, the request for costs made on the “Request for Court Judgment” form is incomplete.  Plaintiff has requested $5,435.55 in costs, but has only listed, in the memorandum of costs, $2,512.88 in filing fees and $857 in process server’s fees (i.e., $3,369.88 in total costs).  (Request for Court Judgment (CIV-100), filed March 4, 2024, ¶ 7.)  Although Plaintiff also appears to have submitted a cost memorandum to support this request, Plaintiff must list the categories of costs on the mandatory “Request for Court Judgment” Judicial Council form.

For the reasons set forth above, the court finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden to prove that he is entitled to court judgment by default against Defendant in the amounts requested.  The court therefore denies Plaintiff’s request for default judgment against Defendant, without prejudice to Plaintiff’s filing revised default judgment documents that cure the defects described in this ruling. 

Finally, the court notes that, at least as to some damages, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant is jointly and severally liable with defendant Orange Trim, Inc.  (Memo., p. 2:25 [Defendant “is jointly and severally liable” for wage and hour violations].)  The court exercises its discretion to defer determination of the default judgment against defendant Soon Pill Kim until the time of trial against defendant Orange Trim, Inc., and further orders that the Order to Show Cause re entry of default judgment against Soon Pill Kim shall be heard concurrently with trial against Orange Trim, Inc.

The court continues the Order to Show Cause re entry of default judgment against defendant Soon Pill Kim to April 10, 2024, at 11:00 a.m., in Department 53.

The court orders plaintiff Ivan Mendoza to file a revised set of default judgment documents that (1) complies with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800 (including by lodging a proposed judgment on Judicial Council Form JUD-100), and (2) corrects the defects set forth above, no later than April 5, 2024.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  March 19, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court