Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 22STCV17918, Date: 2024-01-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV17918    Hearing Date: January 2, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Plaintiff Jose Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) requests entry of default judgment against Defendants Fidel D. Cueva and Express Fumigation, Inc. (jointly, “Defendants”). Plaintiff seeks judgment against both Defendants in the total amount of $831,385.29, comprising $630,000.00 in damages, $200,000.00 in attorney’s fees, and $1,385.29 in costs.

The Court notes several defects with the submitted default judgment packages. 

First, Item 8 of the requests (Forms CIV-100) for both Defendants are not signed. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subdivision (a)(5), the requests must include “[a] declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant against whom judgment is sought.”

Second, Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, $190.00 in costs for “Postage.” The Court notes that Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (b)(3) provides that “[t]he following items are not allowable as costs, except when expressly authorized by law:…(3) Postage, telephone, and photocopying charges, except for exhibits.” Here, Plaintiff does not appear to provide any authority to support the requested costs for postage.

Third, in the proposed judgments (Forms JUD-100) for both Defendants, the box for Judgment “By Clerk” is checked instead of the box for Judgment “By Court.”

Fourth, in his supporting declaration, Plaintiff states that he seeks $130,000.00 in emotional distress damages. (Gonzalez Decl., ¶ 5.) However, Plaintiff’s supporting declaration does not provide facts supporting the emotional distress damages requested. Plaintiff also states that he seeks $50,000.00 for loss of earnings, $300,000.00 for wage and hour penalties and premiums, and $150,000.00 for “wrongful termination, discrimination, and FEHA violation.” (Gonzalez Decl., ¶ 5.) However, there does not appear to be any explanation in the supporting declarations as to how these amounts were calculated or determined.

Fifth, Plaintiff may seek attorney’s fees “if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a)(9).) It is unclear from the supporting declarations on what basis Plaintiff is seeking attorney’s fees. In addition, Plaintiff’s request for $200,000.00 in attorney’s fees greatly exceeds the permissible amount under LASC ¿¿Rule 3.214¿¿. It is thus unclear why Item 7 of the proposed judgments state “Attorney’s fee reduced pursuant to Civil Division Rules 3.214.” Further, Plaintiff’s counsel states that “[i]n pursuing this case against DEFENDANTS’ violation of California Labor Code and other laws, I billed PLAINTIFF over $200,000 in attorney’s fees.” (Wei Decl., ¶ 9.) However, no further supporting documentation appears to be provided to substantiate this amount. 

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

DATED:  January 2, 2024                              ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet 

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court