Judge Teresa A. Beaudet, Case Number: 24STCV14622, Date: 2024-12-09 Tentative Ruling

NARGIS RASHID, Plaintiff, vs. BURGERIM GROUP USA, INC., et al., Defendants.	Case No.:	19STCV43571
	Hearing Date:	December 9, 2024
	Hearing Time:	10:00 a.m.
	[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Nargis Rashid (“Plaintiff”) appears to request entry of default judgment against Defendants Burgerim Group USA, Inc. and Oren Loni. Plaintiff’s proposed judgment indicates that Plaintiff seeks judgment in the total amount of $26,614,817.45, comprising $17,765,250.00 in damages, $8,756,078.01 in interest, $90,356.30 in attorney’s fees, and $3,133.14 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, it does not appear that all of the documents in Plaintiff’s default judgment package were served. The Court notes that pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 587, “[a]n application by a plaintiff for entry of default under subdivision (a), (b), or (c) of¿Section 585¿or¿Section 586¿shall include an affidavit stating that a copy of the application has been mailed to the defendant’s attorney of record or, if none, to the defendant at his or her last known address and the date on which the copy was mailed. If no such address of the defendant is known to the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, the affidavit shall state that fact. No default under subdivision (a), (b), or (c) of¿Section 585¿or¿Section 586¿shall be entered, unless the affidavit is filed. The nonreceipt of the notice shall not invalidate or constitute ground for setting aside any judgment.”

Fourth, Plaintiff filed a memorandum of points and authorities with the default judgment package that references a “Declaration of Nargis Rashid.” However, it does not appear that any such declaration was filed. The Court does not find that Plaintiff has sufficiently proven up the substantial amount of damages requested. Plaintiff filed a number of declarations with the default judgment package, but these declarations are from attorneys, paralegals, and employees at Plaintiff’s counsel’s law firm. It appears that these declarations primarily support Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees.

Fifth, Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Costs indicates that Plaintiff seeks $553.00 in “Other” costs for “Trial Supplies” and “Document Download.” (See Attachment 16a.) Such costs do not appear to be allowable under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, and Plaintiff does not appear to provide any authority demonstrating that such costs are recoverable.

Sixth, Plaintiff’s SAC also names Saffron Mediterranean Kitchen, Burgerim Group, Inc. Food Chain Investments USA, LLC, and Does 3 through 20 as defendants. On July 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal of Burgerim Group, Inc., Food Chain Investments, LLC, and “Doe Defendants.” Dismissal was entered as requested on July 15, 2024. However, it does not appear that any request for dismissal or application for separate judgment was filed as to Saffron Mediterranean Kitchen. The Court notes that 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, Plaintiff’s memorandum of points and authorities asserts that “Defendants conduct was beyond malicious when Mr. Loni continuously engaged in sexual harassment. The despicable conduct that Plaintiff was subjected to eventually led to her constructive termination. As a result, Plaintiff requests, at minimum, $17,500,000.00 in punitive damages.” (Memorandum of Points and Authorities at p. 13:21-23.) The Court notes that pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.115, subdivision (b), “[t]he plaintiff preserves the right to seek punitive damages pursuant to Section 3294 of the Civil Code on a default judgment by serving upon the defendant the following statement, or its substantial equivalent…” (See Id., § 425.115, subd. (b).) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.115, subdivision (f), “[t]he plaintiff shall serve the statement upon the defendant pursuant to this section before a default may be taken, if the motion for default judgment includes a request for punitive damages.” It does not appear that Plaintiff filed or served any such statement.

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.

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50