Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 22PSCV00461, Date: 2023-02-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV00461    Hearing Date: February 17, 2023    Dept: O

Hearing Date:                         February 17, 2023

Plaintiffs’ Application for Default Judgment

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs’ Application for Default Judgment is DENIED WITH prejudice.

Background

This is an employment case.

On May 16, 2022, Plaintiffs Dong Kwon Lee and Eun Sook Kim filed suit against Defendant 101 Sushi Roll and Grill.

On June 14, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) asserting the following causes of action:

(1) Failure To Pay Overtime Wages In Violation Of Labor Code § 204, 510 (2) Failure To Pay Minimum Wages In Violation Of Labor Code § 1194, 1194.2, 1197.1

(3) Failure To Provide Meal Periods In Violation Of Labor Code § 226.7, 512

(4) Failure To Provide Rest Periods In Violation Of Labor Code § 226.7

(5) Failure To Provide Split Shift Premium Pay

(6) Conversion

(7) Failure To Provide Final Wages At Separation In Violation Of Labor Code § 201, 203

(8) Violation Of California Business And Professions Code § 17200

On June 14, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a FAC against SM.KAN INC., a California corporation doing business as 101 SUSHI ROLL & GRILL; SUNGMIN JEON, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50.

On October 5, 2022, default was entered against Defendants.

On December 30, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the instant application.

Discussion

The application is denied for a fatal reason: Plaintiffs’ FAC is inadequate.

CCP section 580 states that “[t]he relief granted to the plaintiff, if there is no answer, cannot exceed that which he or she shall have demanded in his or her complaint, in the statement required by Section 425.11, or in the statement provided for by Section 425.115.” “The Legislature enacted section 580 and related statutes to ensure that a defendant who declines to contest an action does not suffer open-ended liability.” (Electric Funds Solutions, LLC v. Murphy (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1173) (emphasis added). 

Here, the complaint seeks general, special, compensatory damages in an amount in excess of $450,000.00 to be proven at trial; (b) for liquidated damages in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 to be proven at trial; and for statutory penalties in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 to be proven at trial. (See FAC, Prayer for Relief.)[1] Effectively, Plaintiffs are not providing notice of Defendants’ liability, which equates to open-ended liability. Accordingly, the complaint itself fundamentally fails as the primary purpose of section 580 which is to guarantee defaulting parties adequate notice of the maximum judgment that may be assessed against them. (Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 826.) 

Therefore, should Plaintiffs seek default judgment against Defendant, they are to file and serve a new/amended complaint.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the application is denied WITH prejudice.