Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 22STCV06129, Date: 2024-08-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV06129    Hearing Date: August 13, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Plaintiff Danielle Hines (“Plaintiff’) appears to request entry of default judgment against Defendant Cameron Moore, dba Beyond Vegan Eats, dba Juice Bae. The July 3, 2024 “Declaration of Danielle Hines in Support of Request for Court Judgment” asserts, inter alia, that “[i]n total, Defendant owes me $139,250.00 in damages.”

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

First, Plaintiff did not file any request for court judgment (Form CIV-100). Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subdivision (a), “[a] party seeking a default judgment on declarations must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Application to Enter Default) (form CIV-100)…”

Second, Plaintiff has not filed a proposed judgment on Form JUD-100. A party seeking a default judgment¿must file “[a] proposed form of judgment.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a)(6).)

 Third, as discussed, Plaintiff did not file any request for court judgment on Form CIV-100. Thus, Plaintiff also did not file any declaration of nonmilitary status. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subdivision (a)(5), the request for court judgment must include “[a] declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant against whom judgment is sought.”

Fourth, Plaintiff’s operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) names Does 1 through 25 as defendants. 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).)¿ 

Fifth, in her supporting declaration, Plaintiff states that “[b]etween January 2020 and April 2020, I was not paid any wages owed. As a result, Defendant owes me $8,500 ($500 per week for 17 weeks).” (Hines Decl., ¶ 21.) However, this appears to be inconsistent with the allegations of the FAC. In the FAC, Plaintiff alleges that “[f]rom on or about January 6, 2020 to in or about mid-April 2020, Mr. Moore and Beyond Vegan paid Ms. Hines a flat rate of $500.00 per week.” (FAC, ¶ 7.) The Court notes that 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.)

Sixth, Plaintiff seeks overtime wages in the amount of $6,375.00 for the period of January 2020-April 2020, and overtime wages in the amount of $16,875.00 for the period of April 2020 through November 2020. (Hines Decl., ¶¶ 17-18.) Plaintiff seeks overtime wages for 20 hours per week for these periods. (Ibid.) However, it is unclear how Plaintiff calculated this amount. In addition, it appears that Plaintiff may have included the overtime wages for April 2020 twice in her calculations. (See Hines Decl., ¶¶ 17-18.)

Seventh, it appears Plaintiff also requests damages for missed meal and rest breaks twice for April 2020. (Hines Decl., ¶¶ 19-20.)

Eighth, Plaintiff states that “[a]s a result of Defendant’s conduct, I have suffered and continue to suffer emotional distress in the form of anxiety and depression. The amount of my noneconomic damages is $50,000.00.” (Hines Decl., ¶ 25.) The Court does not find that Plaintiff’s supporting declaration provides sufficient facts supporting the emotional distress damages requested.

Ninth, Plaintiff states that “[i]n January 2022, I mitigated my damages by finding full time employment at $23 per hour. Before mitigation, the amount of wages I would have made would be approximately $41,250.00 ($750 per week x 55 weeks).” (Hines Decl., ¶ 24.) However, Plaintiff appears to seek the $41,250.00 in damages, as Plaintiff seeks a total of $139,250.00 in damages. (Hines Decl., ¶¶ 24, 26.) It is unclear on what basis Plaintiff seeks the requested $41,250.00 in damages. (Hines Decl., ¶ 24.) As discussed, Plaintiff alleges in the FAC that “[f]rom on or about January 6, 2020 to in or about mid-April 2020, Mr. Moore and Beyond Vegan paid Ms. Hines a flat rate of $500.00 per week.” (FAC, ¶ 7.) In addition, Plaintiff alleges that “[o]n or around the end of April 2020, Mr. Moore started to pay Ms. Hines $750.00 per week.” (FAC, ¶ 10.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court denies Plaintiff’s apparent request for default judgment without prejudice. The Court will discuss with Plaintiff a schedule for resubmission of the default judgment package.

DATED:  August 13, 2024                             ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet 

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court