Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 24STCV08724, Date: 2024-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV08724    Hearing Date: December 5, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Plaintiff Jocelyn Mestanza (“Plaintiff’) appears to request entry of default judgment against Defendant Power Lane Logistics, Inc. The proposed judgment (Form JUD-100) submitted by Plaintiff on November 4, 2024 indicates that Plaintiff seeks judgment in the total amount of $168,576.66, comprising $143,310.00 in damages, $9,314.46 in prejudgment interest, $15,400.00 in attorney’s fees, and $552.20 in costs.

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, 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.”

Third, Plaintiff’s proposed judgment indicates that Plaintiff seeks $143,310.00 in damages. However, in the Complaint, Plaintiff does not appear to allege that she seeks $143,310.00 in damages. Rather, it appears that the only allegation pertaining to a specific amount of monetary damages allegedly owed to Plaintiff provides, “Plaintiff is entitled to payment from Defendants of the greater of actual damages or $50.00 for the initial pay period in which the violation occurred and $100.00 for each subsequent violation, up to a maximum of $4,000.00, pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code §§226(e) & (g)…” (Compl., ¶ 38.) The Court notes that 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.) 

Fourth, Plaintiff seeks prejudgment interest for the period of April 8, 2024 (the date the Complaint was filed) to January 15, 2025. (Alwill Decl., ¶ 20.) It is unclear why Plaintiff asserts that January 15, 2025 is the “estimated judgment entry date.” (Alwill Decl., ¶ 20.) On October 2, 2024, before the instant default judgment package was filed, the Court issued a minute order scheduling a hearing on the default judgment package for December 5, 2024. (See October 2, 2024 minute order.)

Fifth, Item 5(a) of the proposed judgment appears to contain a typo, as it references defendant “Powern Lane Logistics, Inc.” (Emphasis added.)  

Sixth, Plaintiff’s request for $15,400.00 in attorney’s fees exceeds the permissible amount under LASC ¿¿Rule 3.214¿¿.

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:  December 5, 2024                          ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet 

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court