Case Number: 18STCV00771 Hearing Date: February 19, 2020 Dept: 40

DEFAULT JUDGMENT PROVE-UP CHECKLIST

(CRC Rule 3.1800)

Case Name: Wendy Crane v. Admaniax, LLC Case #: 18STCV00771

Hearing Date: 2/19/20 (OSC: re Entry of Default Judgment)

Defaulting Party: Defendants Admaniax, LLC, Admaniax, Holdings LLC, and Ron Dusenberry (“Defendants”)

Total Amount: $ 486,358.78

BACKGROUND: Plaintiff Wendy Crane (“Plaintiff”) had a written employment agreement with Defendants. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff her wages and to settle that debt they signed a promissory note for $300,000, which they failed to pay.

[X] DEFAULT ENTERED ON: 8/2/19 for Defendants

[X] MANDATORY JUDICIAL COUNCIL FORM CIV-100 SUBMITTED FOR ENTRY OF

COURT JUDGMENT (CRC 3.1800(a))

[X] SERVICE:

Summons and Complaint
On May 31, 2019, Defendants were served at 24221 Hatteras St., Woodland Hills, CA 91367.

[X] DECLARATION OF MAILING — Request for Entry of Default to Defendant (CCP § 587)

On August 2, 2019, the entry of default was mailed to Defendants at 24221 Hatteras St., Woodland Hills, CA 91367.

[X] NO PENDING MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT

[X] SUMMARY OF CASE PROVIDED (CRC 3.1800(a)(1)) – or other declaration OK [X]

[X] EVIDENTIARY DECLARATIONS/OTHER EVIDENCE (CRC 3.1800(a)(2))

Plaintiff has provided a $300,000 promissory note from Defendants. The promissory note indicates that it is in lieu of her unpaid wages.

[X] RELIEF PRAYED FOR IN COMPLAINT (same as requested in default?): [X] yes[ ] no

[X] Compensatory: $ 408,070.97

[ ] Damages

Special: $

General: $

[X] Interest: $ 66,508.00

[X] Costs: $ 1,040.70

[X] Attorney’ Fees: $ 10,739.11

Total: $ 486,358.78

[X] INTEREST COMPUTATIONS (CRC 3.1800(a)(3))

[X] ATTORNEY FEE DECLARATION — Request according to Local Rule 3.214 or reason provided why greater fees should be allowed (CRC 3.1800(b))

[X] Request for atty fees allowed by statute or agreement of parties (CRC 3.1800(a)(9)): Permitted by Statute (Lab. Code § 218.5.)

[ ] $960/$1,200 for book account claim (Civil Code § 1717.5)

[X] MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (CRC 3.1800(a)(4))

[n/a] STATEMENT OF DAMAGES (CCP § 425.11):

[ ] PI/Death Case [ ] Punitives demanded [ ] Accounting

[ ] Evidence of net worth of defendant? [ ] Yes [ ] No

[X] DECLARATION OF NON-MILITARY STATUS executed within 6 months?

Date: 12-11-19 (CRC 3.1800(a)(5); Interinsurance Exchange v. Collins (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1445, 1447.)

[ ] REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF DOES (CRC 3.1800(a)(7))

[ ] If not, authority/basis for several judgment (CCP § 579)

[n/a] WAS DEFAULTING DEFENDANT A DOE? (CCP § 474) – must do one of the following:

[ ] Summons notifies defendant that s/he was served under a fictitious name

[ ] Proof of service states that the Doe amendment form was served with the complaint

[ ] Complaint amended to reflect the true defendant’s name & allegations support claim

[n/a] ORIGINALS Promissory note or other written obligation to pay money must be provided for cancellation by the Clerk per CRC 3.1806

[ ] If no originals, declaration explaining loss/destruction/unavailability of originals

[ ] Proposed order for Court to accept authenticated copy in lieu of original.

[X] PROPOSED FORM OF JUDGMENT INCLUDED (CRC 3.1800(a)(6))

RECOMMENDATION: GRANTED

TENTATIVE RULING: The Court has reviewed the judgment and the judgment is GRANTED as submitted.

Case Number: 18STCV06712 Hearing Date: February 19, 2020 Dept: 40

MOVING PARTY: Defendant The Firm Los Angeles Model and Talent Agency

OPPOSITION: Plaintiff Javier Hernandez

Plaintiff Javier Hernandez was an employee of Defendant The Firm Los Angeles Model and Talent Agency (“Defendant”) and alleges that Defendant paid him a flat weekly wage of $250 despite working more than 80 hours a week. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant for approximately three months and further alleges that he was terminated because of a disability.

On July 19, 2019, Defendant filed the instant motion requesting an order that Plaintiff file an undertaking in an unspecified amount as security for costs and attorney’s fees.

Standard: Code of Civil Procedure section 1030 provides, in relevant part:

“(a) When the plaintiff in an action or special proceeding resides out of the state, or is a foreign corporation, the defendant may at any time apply to the court by noticed motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to file an undertaking to secure an award of costs and attorney’s fees which may be awarded in the action or special proceeding. For the purposes of this section, “attorney’s fees” means reasonable attorney’s fees a party may be authorized to recover by a statute apart from this section or by contract.

(b) The motion shall be made on the grounds that the plaintiff resides out of the state or is a foreign corporation and that there is a reasonable possibility that the moving defendant will obtain judgment in the action or special proceeding. The motion shall be accompanied by an affidavit in support of the grounds for the motion and by a memorandum of points and authorities. The affidavit shall set forth the nature and amount of the costs and attorney’s fees the defendant has incurred and expects to incur by the conclusion of the action or special proceeding.

(c) If the court, after hearing, determines that the grounds for the motion have been established, the court shall order that the plaintiff file the undertaking in an amount specified in the court’s order as security for costs and attorney’s fees.

(d) The plaintiff shall file the undertaking not later than 30 days after service of the court’s order requiring it or within a greater time allowed by the court. If the plaintiff fails to file the undertaking within the time allowed, the plaintiff’s action or special proceeding shall be dismissed as to the defendant in whose favor the order requiring the undertaking was made.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 1030, subd. (a)-(d).)

The purpose of the statute is to enable California residents sued by nonresidents to secure costs in light of the difficulty of enforcing judgment for costs against one who is not within the court’s jurisdiction and to thereby act to prevent out-of-state residents from filing frivolous lawsuits against California residents. Alshafie v. Lallande (2009)171 Cal.App.4th 421.

Analysis: The two requirements of Section 1030 are (1) that plaintiff resides out of state and (2) that there is a reasonable possibility that the moving defendant will obtain a favorable judgment. It is undisputed that Plaintiff resides out of state.

Defendant argues that they will prevail because Plaintiff was terminated for cause, sending emails harassing or defrauding it members. Defendant has provided several emails sent by models who interacted with Plaintiff. The emails accuse Plaintiff of harassing the models and demanding “kickbacks” from them. Defendant also states that Plaintiff has not prosecuted the action with vigor. Plaintiff has failed to conduct any discovery and his responses to Defendant’s discovery requests have failed to provide factual support for his allegations. Defendant states that Plaintiff only worked for Defendant for three months and therefore any wage and hour violations are minimal. Defendant also states that they so far have spent $8,200 in costs and attorneys’ fees, $1,100 and $7,100 respectively. Defendant anticipates spending an additional $50,000 in costs and fees on this matter.

The Court finds that Defendant has not demonstrated that there is a reasonable possibility that they will prevail on all of Plaintiff’s causes of action. As noted by Plaintiff, his complaint contains eleven causes of action: (1) Failure to Provide Meal Periods, (2) Failure to Provide Rest Periods, (3) Failure to Pay Minimum Wage, (4) Failure to Pay Overtime, (5) Failure to Pay All Wages, (6) Failure to Pay Waiting Time Penalties, (7) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements, (8) Unfair Business Practice, (9) Defamation, (10) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (11) Disability Discrimination. Defendant addressed one issue in the motion, whether Plaintiff was terminated for cause. However, they did not address whether they will prevail on their wage and hour claims. Plaintiff could have both been terminated for cause and not properly paid his wages.

Conclusion: Defendant’s motion is DENIED and the Moving Party to provide notice.