Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case 22PSCV00547 2023-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 22PSCV00547, Date: 2023-01-19 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 22PSCV00547 Hearing Date: January 19, 2023 Dept: G

Plaintiff Gladys Ulloa’s Application for Default Judgment

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Gladys Ulloa’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

This is a wrongful termination action. Starting in February 2018, Plaintiff Gladys Ulloa was employed as a full-time accounts receivable assistant for Citrus Valley Physicians Partners. From August to October 2019, Plaintiff went on medical leave after a foot injury. In 2020, Citrus Valley Physicians Partners was purchased by Defendant Emanate Health MSO. On November 5, 2020, Plaintiff had a fall at home and injured Plaintiff’s ankle and right wrist. Defendant received a note from Plaintiff’s doctor placing Plaintiff on extended leave from February 22, 2021 to March 22. However, Defendant ordered Plaintiff to return to work on February 28. On March 1, Plaintiff’s employment was terminated.

On June 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant and Does 1-100, alleging the following causes of action: (1) wrongful termination in violation of implied employment agreement, (2) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (3) disability discrimination, (4) denial of reasonable accommodation, and (5) denial of a workplace environment free from discrimination.

On June 24, 2022, Plaintiff’s registered process server served Defendant with substitute service at Defendant’s Covina location. On September 16, Plaintiff served a statement of damages on Defendant via substitute service and mail. On October 19, default was entered against Defendant.

On December 27, 2022, the present application for default judgment was submitted. An OSC Re: Default/Default Judgment is set for January 19, 2023.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 585 permits entry of a default judgment after a party has filed to timely respond or appear. A party seeking judgment on the default by the court must file a Request for Court Judgment, and: (1) a brief summary of the case; (2) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3) interest computations as necessary; (4) a memorandum of costs and disbursements; (5) a proposed form of judgment; (6) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under CCP § 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (7) exhibits as necessary; and (8) a request for attorneys’ fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (Cal. Rules of Court 3.1800.)

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff seeks default judgment against Defendant in the total amount of $2,149,003.07, including $2,000,000 in damages, $114,606.09 in interest, $33,750 in attorney fees, and $646.98 in costs.¿For the following reasons, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s application without prejudice.

First, the amount of damages requested is unclear and exceeds the statement of damages. (Matera v. McLeod (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 44, 61.) Here, the amount column of Plaintiff’s application requests $2,000,000 in general damages while the balance column only lists $1,000,000. Furthermore, while Plaintiff’s statement of damages requests special damages of $61,500.08 ($5,000 + $56,350.08 + $150), Plaintiff’s application for default requests special damages in the amount of $67,680.

Second, Plaintiff does not provide authority for the award of attorney fees. While Plaintiff requests attorney fees pursuant to Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b) (DeLuca Decl., ¶ 2), this subsection does not authorize attorney fees and only establishes that FEHA complaints must be verified.

Third, while Plaintiff requests punitive damages in the amount of $1,000,000, Plaintiff has not provided required evidence of Defendant’s financial condition. (Farmers & Merchants Trust Co. v. Vanetik (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 638, 648.)

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s application for default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.