Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 20STCV30224, Date: 2024-03-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV30224    Hearing Date: March 19, 2024    Dept: 39

The Labor Commissioner v. 5121 Ascot Avenue, LLC

Case Number 20STCV30224

[Proposed] Amended Statement of Decision

            The Labor Commissioner of the State of California (the “Labor Commissioner” or “Plaintiff”) filed this action against 5121 Ascot Ave LLC (“Ascot” or “Defendant”), among others, seeking to foreclose on mechanic’s liens.  Plaintiff alleges that Ascot’s contractor, P&A Remodeling Consulting, Inc. (“P&A”), failed to pay regular and overtime wages, and failed to provide meal periods and rest breaks, to several workers.  Plaintiff obtained a default against P&A and proceeded to trial against Defendant.  The Court conducted the trial against Defendant and the default prove-up hearing against P&A on December 14, 2023, and February 7, 2024.  The trial lasted less than eight hours, and neither party requested a statement of decision “before the matter [was] submitted for decision,” as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1590.  Nevertheless, the Court issued a written order to make the basis of its verdict clear, which the Court elected to treat as a proposed statement of decision.  (See Court’s Minute Order, dated February 22, 2024.)  The Court has considered the Labor Commissioner’s objections and now issues this proposed amended statement of decision.

            Previously, the Court ruled that the Labor Commissioner may recover overtime wages, as well as payments for missed meal periods and rest breaks, through mechanic’s liens.  (See Court’s Minute Order, dated June 13, 2022.)  The Court ruled that the action is timely, and the reasonable value of the liens is based upon “the reasonable value of the work, which in this case would be the reasonable wages for the unpaid work.”  (See Court’s Minute Order, dated March 13, 2023.)  The Court incorporates those orders by reference. 

            The Court finds that Robert Morales, Wuilmar Bautista, and Carlos Ajcot (the “workers”) worked for P&A and performed work on Defendant’s property.  The Court finds that the workers were paid as follows, and that these rates are the reasonable value for the liens:

            Robert Morales           $200 per day/$1,200 per week           $30 per hour

            Wuilmar Bautista        $250 per day/$1,500 per week           $37.50 per hour

            Carlos Ajcot                $190 per day/$1,140 per week           $28.50 per hour

The Court finds that the workers worked from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. every day and received one hour of breaks, which they took from 12 Noon to 1 p.m.  The Court finds that the workers worked seven hours per day and six days per week, meaning that they worked 42 hours per week. 

The Court finds that the workers began working on Wednesday, January 8, 2020, based upon the testimony of Brian Rabbani, which was corroborated by Trial Exhibit #31.  The Court finds that the workers were paid on Saturdays, but they did not receive a paycheck on Saturday, February 1, 2020, which was their last day of work.  The Court discredits the workers’ testimony that they worked for longer periods on Defendant’s property. 

            The Court finds that the three workers were not paid for nine (9) days of work based upon their testimony, which the Court credits on this issue.  The Court also relies on the testimony of Brian Rabbani, who testified that the workers complained to him about not receiving wages shortly after the missed payments.  Therefore, the workers are entitled to the following amounts for unpaid wages:

            Robert Morales                       $1,800

            Wuilmar Bautista                    $2,250

            Carlos Ajcot                            $1,710

The Court also finds that the workers did not receive premium pay for two hours of overtime on the following days: (1) Saturday, January 18, 2020; (2) Saturday, January 25, 2020; and (3) Saturday, February 1, 2020.  The Court finds that the workers did not work any overtime beyond these hours on these days and discredits their testimony to the contrary.  Therefore, the workers are entitled to the following additional amounts:

            Robert Morales                       $270

            Wuilmar Bautista                    $337.50

            Carlos Ajcot                            $256.50

            The Court finds that Plaintiff did not prove the workers were deprived of rest breaks.  Plaintiff’s evidence was insufficient, and the Court discredits the workers’ testimony on this issue.  However, the Court finds that Plaintiff proved that one worker—Wuilmar Bautista—did not receive meal breaks on two days per week, which is a total of eight days, which means he is entitled to an additional $300.  To the extent Bautista testified that he missed more meal periods, the Court discredits his testimony on that issue.

            The Labor Commissioner is entitled to prejudgment interest from the date of the recording of the amended liens (May 11, 2020) to the date of the verdict (February 9, 2024).  This is 1,369 days.  Therefore, the prejudgment interest is as follows:

            Robert Morales                       $543.38

            Wuilmar Bautista                    $757.97

            Carlos Ajcot                            $516.21

The Court finds in favor of Defendant, and against the Labor Commissioner, on the remaining liens because the Labor Commissioner presented insufficient evidence to support the claims, e.g., the Labor Commissioner did not call the workers at issue as witnesses at trial.  The Court finds that the Labor Commissioner did not willfully inflate the value of any of the liens.  The Court has considered and rejected the parties’ remaining arguments that are inconsistent with this verdict. 

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         The Court finds in favor of Plaintiff, and against Defendant, in the total amount of $8,741.56.

2.         The Court finds that Plaintiff has proved damages against P&A Remodeling Consulting, Inc. in the amount of $8,741.56. 

            3.         The Court orders no attorneys’ fees because the Labor Commissioner withdrew the request for attorneys’ fees in the operative complaint. 

            4.         The Court orders that each party shall bear their own costs.  The Court finds that neither party is the prevailing party because neither party achieved a complete victory on all claims/defenses.  In the alternative, to the extent the Labor Commissioner would be considered the prevailing party, the Court denies costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.  Although Defendant made an offer of $7,000 under Code of Civil Procedure section 998, dated December 2, 2022, based upon the prejudgment interest between May 11, 2020, and December 22, 2022, the Labor Commissioner achieved a better outcome at trial.    

            5.         The Court issues this [proposed] amended tentative statement of decision.  Any objections shall be filed within 15 days, per California Rules of Court, rule 3.1590(g).  If no objections are received, this proposed amended tentative statement of decision shall become final without a further hearing. 

            6.         The Court sets a non-appearance case review for April 12, 2024, at 1:30 p.m.

            7.         The Court’s clerk shall provide notice.