Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 20STCV08392, Date: 2024-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV08392    Hearing Date: December 9, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Plaintiff Karina Reyes (“Plaintiff”) requests that the Court enter default judgment against Defendant Working Class American Construction in the total amount of $750,184.66, comprising $701,000.00 in damages, $20,549.86 in interest, $974.80 in costs, and $27,660.00 in attorney’s fees.

Plaintiff also requests that the Court enter default judgment against Defendant Ronald Wilson in the total amount of $683,279.18, comprising $636,000.00 in damages, $18,644.38 in interest, $974.80 in costs, and $27,660.00 in attorney’s fees.

In addition, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter default judgment against Defendants Matthew Gore and Lawrence Boguslawski in the total amount of $38,516.22, comprising $9,600.00 in damages, $281.42 in interest, $974.80 in costs, and $27,660.00 in attorney’s fees.

The Court notes a number of defects with the submitted default judgment package.

First, in each of the requests for court judgment (Forms CIV-100), Items 6(a) are checked. However, the names of the defendant(s) are not specified in Items 6(a) after “(names)”. In addition, there is no “Signature of Declarant” below Items 4, 5, and 6 of the requests for court judgment. 

Second, Plaintiff’s Summary of the Case indicates that Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, waiting time penalties in the sum of $9,600.00. However, the Prayer for Relief of Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, “[w]aiting time penalties pursuant to California Labor Code Section 203, in an amount to be established according to proof at trial, approximating $4,000…” (Compl., p. 12:12-13, emphasis added.) The Court notes that “¿[a] complaint…shall contain…the following:…(2) A demand for judgment for the relief to which the pleader claims to be entitled. If the recovery of money or damages is demanded, the amount demanded shall be stated.¿” (¿Code Civ. Proc., § 425.10, subd. (a)¿.) ¿Code of Civil Procedure section 580, subdivision (a)¿ “¿limits a trial court’s jurisdiction to grant relief on a default judgment to the amount stated in the complaint.¿” (¿Dhawan v. Biring (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 963, 968¿.) “[I]n all default judgments the demand sets a ceiling on recovery.” (Finney v. Gomez (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 527, 534.) 

Third, Plaintiff’s Summary of the Case indicates that Plaintiff seeks $126,400.00 in “backpay” against certain defendants. However, it appears Plaintiff seeks this amount for “front pay.” In the Summary of the Case, Plaintiff asserts that “Plaintiff’s salary was $1600 per week, and she was forced to quit on January 13, 2023, and she has yet to get rehired. (Reyes Decl. ¶¶ 10, 19) Thus, as of July 19, 2024, there are 79 weeks of lost wages, amounting to $126,400.” (Summary of the Case at pp. 3:28-4:2.)  

            Fourth, as to the request for court judgment pertaining to Matthew Gore and Lawrence Boguslawski, Plaintiff’s “Declaration of nonmilitary status” indicates that “the defendant/respondent is not eligible to serve in the U.S. military because they are:…a business entity.” This appears to be an error. Matthew Gore and Lawrence Boguslawski are named as “individuals” in the Complaint.

Fifth, it does not appear that any proposed judgment was filed in connection with the requests for court judgment. A party seeking a default judgment must file “[a] proposed form of judgment.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a)(6).)

Sixth, Plaintiff has not sought to dismiss the doe defendants. A party seeking a default judgment must file “[a] dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under ¿Code of Civil Procedure section 579¿, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment…”¿ (¿Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a)(7)¿.)¿

Seventh, the amount of attorney’s fees requested in connection with each of the requests is in excess of the schedule set forth in LASC rule 3.214(a).  

Based on the foregoing, the Court denies Plaintiff’s requests for default judgment without prejudice. The Court will discuss with counsel a schedule for submitting a new default judgment package.

DATED:  December 9, 2024                          ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court