Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 21STCV09354, Date: 2022-08-22 Tentative Ruling
1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.
If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.
2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.
3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING. The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.
Case Number: 21STCV09354 Hearing Date: August 22, 2022 Dept: 51
Tentative Ruling
Judge Upinder S.
Kalra, Department 51
HEARING DATE: August
15, 2022
CASE NAME: Silvia
Baldassini, et al. v. South Bay Restaurant Group, Inc., et al.
CASE NO.: 21STCV09354
OSC
RE: SUBMISSION OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs
RESPONDING PARTY(S): None
TENTATIVE RULING:
OSC Re: Submission of Default
Judgment is CONTINUED.
STATEMENT
OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
On Mach 9, 2021,
Plaintiffs Silvia Baldassini, Derek Centeno, Danelia Zaldivar, Jesse Alva,
Carlo Carvlho, and Marcelo Sul (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against
Defendants South Bay Restaurant Group, Incorprated dba Samba Brazilian
Steakhouse and/or Samba Brazilian Steakhouse & Grill and/or Samba Brailian
Steakhouse and Lounge and/or Samba by the Sea, Elias Barragan, George Mousalli,
and Does 1 through 100. The complaint alleged 11 causes of action: (1) Failure
to Pay Earned Wages, (2) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages, (3) Failure to Pay
Overtime Compensation, (4) Failure to Pay Meal Period Compensation, (5) Failure
to Pay Rest Period Compensation, (6) Failure to Furnish Wage and Hour Statements,
(7) Waiting Time Penalties, (8) Conversion, (9) Hostile Work Environment
Harassment Based on Sex in Violation of the FEHA, (10) Failure to Take
Reasonable Steps to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, or Retaliation from
Occurring, and (11) Unfair Competition. The complaint alleges that the
Plaintiffs worked for Defendants and during that time the Defendants failed to
pay proper wages, failed to provide meal and rest periods. Additionally, the
Defendants created a hostile working environment.
On May 12, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint.
On June 23, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Request for Entry of
Default, which was REJECTED.
On August 20, 2021, Defendant South Bay Restaurant Group
Inc., filed an Answer.
On October 4, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Strike
Reply and Answer and Enter Default, which was GRANTED.
On March 10, 2022, Defendant/Appellant Elisa Barragan filed
a Notice of Appeal.
On May 11, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an Objection to the Notice of Appeal.
LEGAL STANDARD
CCP § 585 permits entry of a
judgment after a Defendant fails to timely answer following proper service of
process. A party seeking judgment on the default by the Court must file a
Request for Court Judgment, and provide: (1) a brief summary of the case; (2)
declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested;
(3) interest computations as necessary; (4) a memorandum of costs and
disbursements; (5) a proposed form of judgment; (6) a dismissal of all parties
against whom judgment is not sought; (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom
judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under CCP § 579,
supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (8) exhibits as necessary;
and (9) a request for attorneys’ fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement
of the parties. (CRC Rule 3.1800.)
ANALYSIS:
On November 9, 2021, the
Court entered a Minute Order. In it, the Court struck the Reply and Answer. The
Reply and Answer were filed by Elias Barragan, the “attorney-in-fact.” However,
because Barragan is not a licensed attorney, she cannot represent South Bay, a
corporation. The Plaintiffs also requested that the Court entered Default.
On March 18, 2022, Elias
Barragan filed a Notice of Appeal. However, on May 4, 2022, the Court entered a
Notice of Default, as the Appellant failed to deposit $100 as required under
CRC Rule 8.100(b)(2).
On May 11, 2022, Plaintiffs
filed an Objection to the Notice of Appeal. In it, Plaintiffs indicate that
there is no judgment in this matter. The Notice of Appeal refers to a Demurrer.
Default was entered and the Answer was struck on February 17, 2022. Further,
there was no demurrer filed by any party.
On May 19, 2022, the Court
continued the matter to allow time to file an amended complaint; defaulted
defendant Barragan was present, but the Court noted Mr. Barragan could not
appear until default was cured.
On June 28, 2022, the Court
of Appeal issued a Remittitur, indicating that the appellant was in default and
the appeal is dismissed; appellant also failed to file a Case Information Statement.
As of August 10, 2022, no
new documents have been filed.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the
Court decides the pending motion as follows:
The OSC Re: Submission of Default
Judgment is CONTINUED.
Moving party to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 15, 2022 ___________________________________
Upinder
Kalra
Judge
of the Superior Court