Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 23STCV23673, Date: 2024-04-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV23673    Hearing Date: April 16, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Plaintiffs Daniel Acosta (“Acosta”), Salvador Gomez (“Gomez”) Marcos Ochoa (“Ochoa”), and Xiomara Sanchez (“Sanchez”), (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) request entry of default judgment against Defendants Libra Hollywood, LLC and John Greenwood (jointly, “Defendants”). Plaintiffs seek judgment in the total amount of $34,600.10, comprising $28,927.67 in damages, $3,163.82 in interest, $1,155.87 in costs, and $1,352.74 in attorney’s fees.  

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

First, Item 1(a) of the Request (Form CIV-00) incorrectly states that the Complaint in this action was filed on September 9, 2023. The Complaint was filed on September 29, 2023. In addition, Item 1(b) of the Request references “Plaintiffs, Daniel Acosta, et all.” It is thus unclear from Item 1(b) whether all (or only some) of the plaintiffs in this action are seeking default judgment against Defendants.   

Second, Item 2(a) of the Request (Form CIV-00) indicates that Plaintiffs seek $28,927.68 in damages. However, Plaintiffs’ supporting declarations do not indicate that Plaintiffs each seek $28,927.68 in damages. It is unclear why this total amount is listed on the Request. Acosta states that he seeks $2,000 in minimum wages and $4,800 in waiting time penalties. (Acosta Decl., ¶ 14(a)-(b).) Gomez states that he seeks $1,400 in minimum wages and $4,200 in waiting time penalties. (Gomez Decl., ¶ 14(a)-(b).) Ochoa states that he seeks $2,150 in minimum wages and $5,160 in waiting time penalties. (Ochoa Decl., ¶ 14(a)-(b).) Sanchez states that she seeks $3,060 in minimum wages and $6,120 in waiting time penalties. (Sanchez Decl., ¶14(a)-(b).)

Third, Acosta states that “[p]ursuant to California Labor Code section 1194, I seek to recover liquidated damages of the remaining amount equal to the wages unlawfully unpaid, which taken together, should equal $2,000 ($20 x 100 hours). Therefore, I request $450 in liquidated damages.” (Acosta Decl., ¶ 9.) Similarly, Gomez states that “[p]ursuant to California Labor Code section 1194, I seek to recover liquidated damages of the remaining amount equal to the wages unlawfully unpaid, which taken together, should equal $1,400 ($17.50 x 80 hours). Therefore, I request $160 in liquidated damages.” (Gomez Decl., ¶ 9.) Ochoa states that “[p]ursuant to California Labor Code section 1194, I seek to recover liquidated damages of the remaining amount equal to the wages unlawfully unpaid, which taken together, should equal $2,150 ($21.50 x 100 hours). Therefore, I request $600 in liquidated damages.” (Ochoa Decl., ¶ 9.) Sanchez states that “[p]ursuant to California Labor Code section 1194, I seek to recover liquidated damages of the remaining amount equal to the wages unlawfully unpaid, which taken together, should equal $3,060 ($25.50 x 100 hours). Therefore, I request $1,200 in liquidated damages.” (Sanchez Decl., ¶ 9.)

Labor Code section 1194, subdivision (a) provides that “[n]otwithstanding any agreement to work for a lesser wage, any employee receiving less than the legal minimum wage or the legal overtime compensation applicable to the employee is entitled to recover in a civil action the unpaid balance of the full amount of this minimum wage or overtime compensation, including interest thereon, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.” This provision does not appear to provide for the requested liquidated damages, and Plaintiffs do not appear to cite any additional legal authority supporting such request. 

Fourth, Plaintiffs seek $3,163.82 in interest. However, Plaintiffs’ supporting declarations do not indicate that Plaintiffs each seek $3,163.82 in interest. Rather, Acosta asserts that he is owed at least $753.33 in prejudgment interest. (Acosta Decl., ¶ 14(c).) Gomez asserts that he is owed at least $618.33 in prejudgment interest. (Gomez Decl., ¶ 14(c).) Ochoa asserts that he is owed at least $803.83 in prejudgment interest. (Ochoa Decl., ¶ 14(c).) Sanchez asserts that she is owed at least $1,020 in prejudgment interest. (Ochoa Decl., ¶ 14(c).) In addition, it is unclear from Plaintiffs’ supporting declarations how many days of prejudgment interest each plaintiff seeks.   

Fifth, Plaintiffs have not set forth any legal authority for certain requested costs that are not allowable under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, i.e., costs for a “Skip Trace.” (Request, Item 7(d).)  

Sixth, Plaintiffs do not appear to provide a supporting declaration from their counsel substantiating the attorney’s fees requested.

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

DATED:  April 16, 2024                                ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court