Judge: Rupert A. Byrdsong, Case: 24STCV01105, Date: 2025-03-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV01105    Hearing Date: March 4, 2025    Dept: 28

Tentative Ruling

Judge Rupert A. Byrdsong

Department 28

Hearing Date:                                  March 4, 2025

Case Name:                                      Stockdale v. Infinite Recovery Solutions LLC, et al.

Case No.:                                           24STCV01105

Motion:                                              Default Judgment

Moving Party:                                 Plaintiff Savannah Stockdale

Responding Party:                         Unopposed

Notice:                                                OK

Recommended Ruling:               Plaintiff’s request for entry of default of Defendant Infinite                                                                         Recovery Solutions LLC is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

On January 12, 2024, Plaintiff Savannah Stockdale (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Infinite Recovery Solutions LLC, Spark to Recovery Inc., Y & Y Recovery LLC, and Does 1 through 10. Plaintiff alleged causes of action for (1) failure to pay all hours worked, (2) failure to pay overtime wages, (3) failure to pay minimum wages, (4) failure to provide itemized wage statement, (5) waiting time penalties, (6) meal period violations, (7) rest period violations, (8) unfair and unlawful business practices, and (9) failure to provide personnel records.

Plaintiff alleges that she worked as an Admissions Director for Defendants from October 2020 through November 2023. During this period, Plaintiff claims she worked 14-hour days, 7 days a week, and Defendants made Plaintiff keep herself available at all times. Allegedly, as a result, Plaintiff claims to have suffered various Labor Code violations during the pendency of her employment.

 Plaintiff substitute served Infinite Recovery Solutions LLC on January 24, 2024. Defendant Spark to Recovery Inc. filed an answer in this case on behalf of itself and Infinite Recovery Solutions LLC. However, this was an error, and Spark to Recovery Inc. only meant to file an answer on its own behalf. Spark to Recovery Inc. filed a notice of errata stating that the answer was only on behalf of itself, not Infinite Recovery Solutions LLC. Plaintiff has moved three times for entry of default against Infinite Recovery Solutions LLC, but the Clerk has rejected entry of default because of the erroneous answer on file. Plaintiff now moves for entry of default.   

MOVING PARTY POSITION

Plaintiff argues that Defendant Infinite Recovery Solutions LLC is in default because it failed to file a responsive pleading within the 30 days set under statute. Plaintiff highlights that the answer filed on behalf of Infinite Recovery Solutions LLC was in error. Plaintiff has reached out to Infinite Recovery Solutions LLC, informing them that no responsive pleading is on file and that they are in default. Infinite Recovery Solutions LLC did not respond to Plaintiff, and it did not file a responsive pleading in this matter.

OPPOSITION

No opposition filed as of 2/27/2025.

REPLY

No reply filed as of 2/27/2025.

ANALYSIS

“A request to enter default for failure to timely file an answer initially must be directed to the clerk. If the clerk rejects a request to enter default, the defect cannot be cured to the clerk's satisfaction, and counsel disagrees with the clerk, then counsel may apply for ex parte relief to the direct calendar judge, Specialized Civil Court judge, or supervising judge, whichever is appropriate.” LASC Rule 3.200(a).

Here, Plaintiff substitute served Infinite Recovery Solutions LLC on January 24, 2024. Moon Decl., Ex. 2. Since that service, Infinite Recovery Solutions LLC has not filed any kind of responsive pleading in this matter. Moon Decl., ¶ 9, Ex. 8. However, Defendant Spark to Recovery Inc. accidentally filed an answer on behalf of itself and Infinite Recovery Solutions LLC, but Spark to Recovery Inc. Filed a notice of errata and amended their answer to reflect that it was only answering on behalf of itself. Compare Moon Decl., Ex. 5, with Moon Decl., Exs. 6, 7. Plaintiff has moved three times for entry of default against Infinite Recovery Solutions LLC. Moon Decl., Exs. 9, 11, 13. However, the Clerk has rejected Plaintiff’s request for entry of Infinite Recovery Solutions LLC’s default three times because an answer is on file for Infinite Recovery Solutions LLC. Moon Decl., Exs. 10, 12, 14.

Having reviewed the filings in this matter, the Court finds that Infinite Recovery Solutions LLC has not filed any kind of responsive pleading in this matter. Spark to Recovery Inc.’s answer filed on behalf of Infinite Recovery Solutions LLC was an error. Because Infinite Recovery Solutions LLC has failed to file a responsive pleading in this matter, Infinite Recovery Solutions LLC is in default. The Court exercises its powers to enter default under LASC Rule 3.200(a).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s request for entry of default of Defendant Infinite Recovery Solutions LLC is GRANTED.