This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/27/2019 at 16:03:06 (UTC).

BACILISA BARRERA ET AL VS M & R APPAREL INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 08/11/2016 BACILISA BARRERA filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against M R APPAREL INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MARC MARMARO and MAUREEN DUFFY-LEWIS. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0170

  • Filing Date:

    08/11/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MARC MARMARO

MAUREEN DUFFY-LEWIS

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

PADILLA ELVIA

RODRIGUEZ MARIA

BARRERA BACILISA

MADRIGAL JUAN

REYES ESTELA

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1-20

CHING MICHELLE

M & R APPAREL INC

M & R APPAREL INC.

PANTAZIS GEORGE

BRADFORD RICHARD

DINO'S BURGERS FAST FOOD INC.

CHIANG MICHELLE

CUTIE APPAREL INC.

MJC APPAREL INC. - DOE 3

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

EMPLOYEE JUSTICE LEGAL GROUP LLP

COGAN RAEF JOSEPH

Defendant Attorney

TU EDWARD C. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT

12/21/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT

NOTICE TO APPEAR AND TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL TO DEFENDANTS

1/11/2018: NOTICE TO APPEAR AND TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL TO DEFENDANTS

NOTICE OF RULING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

2/13/2018: NOTICE OF RULING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT

3/23/2018: NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT

Minute Order

9/27/2018: Minute Order

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

11/5/2018: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Proof of Service by Mail

1/23/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Proof of Service by Mail

1/23/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

1/23/2019: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Unknown

1/23/2019: Unknown

Unknown

1/23/2019: Unknown

Unknown

1/23/2019: Unknown

Unknown

5/1/2019: Unknown

Unknown

10/25/2016: Unknown

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

2/27/2017: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

4/24/2017: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

Minute Order

4/26/2017: Minute Order

PROOF OF SERVICE OF PLAINTIFF'S TRIAL DOCUMENTS

9/29/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF PLAINTIFF'S TRIAL DOCUMENTS

100 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/10/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 37; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (For Failure to Prosecute the Case) - Not Held - Clerical Error

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 37; Order to Show Cause Re: (Default Judgment) - Not Held - Clerical Error

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2019
  • Order to Show Cause (Hearing); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2019
  • Order to Show Cause (Hearing); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 37; Order to Show Cause Re: (Entry of Default - M. Rodriguez - Default Pkg) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 37; Order to Show Cause Re: (Entry of Default - E. Reyes - Default Pkg) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 37; Order to Show Cause Re: (Entry of Default - E. Padilla - Default Pkg) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 37; Order to Show Cause Re: (Entry of Default - J. Mardrigal - Default Pkg) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
182 More Docket Entries
  • 09/27/2016
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2016
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2016
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS AND COMPLAIN

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Bacilisa Barrera (Plaintiff); Juan Madrigal (Plaintiff); Elvia Padilla (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Bacilisa Barrera (Plaintiff); Juan Madrigal (Plaintiff); Elvia Padilla (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS AND COMPLAIN

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2016
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF GOV T CODE 1294O ET SEQ.; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Bacilisa Barrera (Plaintiff); Juan Madrigal (Plaintiff); Elvia Padilla (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC630170    Hearing Date: November 15, 2019    Dept: 37

HEARING DATE: November 15, 2019

CASE NUMBER: BC630170

DEFAULT ENTERED: October 11, 2019

CASE NAME: Bacilisa Barrera, et al. v. M & R Apparel, Inc.

SUBJECT: Plaintiffs’ Application for Default Judgment against M & R Apparel, Inc. (Hearing Continued from November 7, 2019).

RECOMMENDATION: The court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Application for Default Judgment against M&R Apparel, Inc.

BACKGROUND

This employment action arises from allegations that Defendant M & R Apparel, Inc. (“M&R”) engaged in violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) and the Labor Code with respect to former employees Plaintiffs Bacilisa Barrera (“Barrera”), Juan Madrigal (“Madrigal”), Elvia Padilla (“Padilla”), Estela Reyes (“Reyes”) and Maria Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”). The Complaint alleges that Defendant Michelle Ching (“Ching”) was a supervisory or managerial employee of M&R.

In the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege 18 causes of action. Plaintiff Padilla asserts: (1) the first cause of action for discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) the second cause of action for retaliation in violation of the FEHA; (3) the third cause of action for failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of the FEHA; (4) the fourth cause of action for failure to provide reasonable accommodations in violation of the FEHA; (5) the fifth cause of action for failure to engage in a good faith interactive process in violation of the FEHA; (6) the sixth cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and (7) the seventh cause of action for declaratory judgment.

Plaintiffs Padilla and Rodrigues assert: the ninth cause of action for retaliation in violation of Labor Code, §§ 1102.5 and 1102.5. Plaintiff Reyes asserts the eighth cause of action for retaliation in violation of Labor Code, § 98.6.

All Plaintiffs assert: (1) the tenth cause of action for failure to pay wages due; (2) the eleventh cause of action for failure to pay minimum wages; (3) the twelfth cause of action for failure to pay overtime compensation; (4) the thirteenth cause of action for failure to provide rest breaks; (5) the fourteenth cause of action for failure to furnish wage and hour statements; (6) the sixteenth cause of action for unfair competition in violation of Business and Professions Code, §§ 17200, et seq.; (7) the seventeenth cause of action under the Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”); and (8) the eighteenth cause of action for failure to permit inspection of personnel and payroll records. Plaintiffs Barrera, Padilla, Reyes, and Rodriguez assert the fifteenth cause of action for waiting time penalties.

M&R filed its Answer on October 12, 2016 and appeared in this action. On May 16, 2018, the court granted Defendant’s counsel Amity Law Group, LLP’s motion to be relieved as counsel. M&R did not appear for the May 29, 2018 final status conference and the court vacated the trial date and set a default prove-up hearing as to M&R for June 28, 2018. Plaintiff did not timely submit default papers for the June 28, 2018 hearing and default was not entered against M&R.

On November 13, 2017, Plaintiff named Cutie Apparel, Inc. (“Cutie Apparel”), Richard Bradford (“Bradford”), and MJC Apparel, Inc. (“MJC Apparel”) as Doe Defendants. Plaintiffs subsequently requested and received entry of default against Cutie Apparel, Bradford and MJV Apparel. The court entered default judgment against Cutie Apparel, Bradford and MJC Apparel

Plaintiff now seeks default judgment against M&R Apparel. The hearing on this request was originally set for November 7, 2019 and was continued to November 15, 2019 at Plaintiffs’ counsel’s request for the court to consider new declarations filed in support.

I. PROOF OF SERVICE/ ENTRY OF DEFAULT

On August 22, 2016, Plaintiffs filed proofs of service indicating that the Summons and Complaint were served on M&R Apparel, Incorporated by serving its authorized agent, Nicholas Brito, at 1742 Floradale Avenue, South El Monte, CA 91733. Defendant Ching was also served at 7142 Floradale Avenue, South El Monte, CA 91733. This is sufficient to comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure, section 415.10.

On August 28, 2019, the court struck M&R’s answer to the complaint.

On October 11, 2019, the court entered default against M&R. Plaintiffs filed a declaration of mailing indicating that a copy of the Request for Entry of Default was mailed on October 11, 2019 to Michelle Ching, 1742 Floradale Avenue, South El Monte, CA 91733. This is sufficient to comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure, section 587.

II. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800):

  1. Use of JC Form CIV-100 Yes

  2. Dismissal or judgment of non-parties to the judgment Yes

  3. Declaration of non-military status for each defendant Yes

  4. Summary of the case Yes

  5. 585(d) declarations/admissible evidence in support of judgment Yes

  6. Exhibits (as necessary) Insuff.

  7. Interest computation (as necessary) Yes

  8. Memorandum of costs Yes

  9. Request for attorney fees (per Local Rule 3.214) Yes

  10. Proposed judgment Yes

III. Discussion

Five separate Request for Default Judgment have been filed in this action by five individual Plaintiffs:

Plaintiff Evelia Padilla seeks:

Total - $189,012.80

Plaintiff Bacilisa Barrera seeks:

Total - $247,744.02

Plaintiff Estela Reyes seeks

Total - $285,385.70

Plaintiff Maria Rodriguez seeks:

Total - $320,366.10

Plaintiff Juan Madrigal Cruz seeks:

Total - $216,899.22

A. Principal Damages

Each of the five Plaintiffs have submitted a declaration in support of their request for principal damages. All Plaintiffs attests that they worked at Defendants’ company, M&R Apparel, Inc. and that throughout the cost of their employment, they regularly worked six (6) days per week, from approximately 8:00 am to 6:00 p.m. for a total of approximately 60 hours per week. All Plaintiffs also attests that despite working approximately 120 hours per pay period, they were only compensated for approximately only 60 hours every two weeks. Furthermore, all Plaintiffs also attests that they were never fully paid for minimum wages and an overtime premium. Thus,

Each of the plaintiff’s also attests they are entitled to recover liquidated damages pursuant to Labor Code § 1194.2 in an amount equal to the minimum wages unlawfully unpaid in the amounts set forth above. Thus,

Each of the Plaintiffs also attests that they are entitled to compensation for missed rest periods pursuant to Labor Code § 512 and 226.7(b). Thus,

Each of the Plaintiffs also attests that they are entitled to statutory penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 226.3, which penalizes an employer in the amount of $250 per employee per violation in an initial citation and one thousand dollars per employee for each violation in a subsequent citation. Thus,

Each of the Plaintiffs also attests that they are entitled to civil penalties for Defendant’s violation of Labor Code § 558, which penalizes Defendants $50.00 for the first violation and $100.00 for the remaining pay periods. Thus,

Each of the Plaintiffs also establish that they are entitled to statutory penalties in the amount of:

  1. $4,000 for Defendant’s failure to provide accurate wage statements pursuant to Labor § 226

  2. $750 for Defendant’s failure to provide a copy of the personnel records under Labor Code § 1198.5

  3. $750 for Defendant’s failure to provide itemized wage statements pursuant to Labor Code § 226(c)

  4. $232.63 pursuant to claims brought under Labor Code § 2699(f)

All Plaintiffs except Madrigal Cruz attests that they are entitled to statutory penalties in the amount of $3,780.00 for Defendants failure to pay wages upon termination of employment pursuant to Labor Code § 203.

Lastly, Plaintiff Estela Reyes establishes that she is entitled to statutory penalties in the amount of $10,000.00 pursuant to Labor Code § 98.6(b) (Reyes Decl. ¶ 14) and Plaintiffs Evelia Padilla and Maria Rodriguez attests that they are entitled to statutory penalties in the amount of $10,000 pursuant to Labor Code § 1102.5. (Padilla Decl. ¶ 10; Rodriguez ¶ 13.)

B. Interest

Each Plaintiff seeks pre-judgment interest on each individual principal damages award based on a 10% annual interest rate calculated from the last date of work until the date that the interest was calculated. Based on the Declaration Re: Interest filed for each Plaintiff,

Plaintiff Bacilisa Barrera is entitled to interest in the amount of $ 40,547.95

Plaintiff Evelia Padilla is entitled to interest in the amount of $25,836.10

Plaintiff Juan Madrigal Cruz is entitled to interest in the amount of $25,836.00

Plaintiff Estela Reyes is entitled to interest in the amount of $40,317.00

Plaintiff Maria Rodriguez is entitled to interest in the amount of $45,317.00

C. Attorney Fees

Plaintiff Evelia Padilla, Bacilisa Barrera, and Estela Reyes each seek an attorney fees award in the amount of $41,404,50. Plaintiffs Maria Rodriguez and Juan Madrigal Cruz each seek attorney fees in the amount of $51,517.50. In sum, Plaintiffs seek a total attorney fees award in the amount of $231,906.1.

In support of this requests, Plaintiffs submitted the Declaration of Catherine Wagner Calderaro. Attached to the Declaration of Catherine Wagner Calderaro appears to be billing records that Plaintiff’s counsel prepared in support of its request for attorney fees.

On August 28, 2019, the court found that attorney Calderaro’s records were not properly authenticated and that the rates are unsupported by the declaration.

On November 5, 2019, Plaintiffs counsel filed additional declarations in support of Plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees in connection with this request for default judgment. Those declarations were filed too late for the November 7 hearing, which was continued to allow the court to review the new evidence.

First, Plaintiffs submit the Amended Declaration of Catherine Calderaro, who attests that her reasonable hourly rate is $400 based on her years of practice and focus on civil litigation work, with an emphasis in employment law. (Declaration of Catherine Calderaro (“Calderaro Decl.”), ¶ 3.) Katherine Calderaro declares that she spent 26.1 hours working on this case in total by “attending hearings, preparing case reviews and drafting documents in connection with the various requests for default. (Id., ¶ 4.) Accordingly, Ms. Calderaro requests attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,952.00 per plaintiff, or $9,760.00 total. The court approves those fees.

Second, Plaintiffs submit the Declaration of Kaveh S. Elihu. Kaveh Elihu declares that he is the founder of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s firm and has practiced for ten years. (Declaration of Kaveh Elihu (“Elihu Decl.”) ¶¶ 1-2.) Further, Kaveh Elihu declares that his rate of $750 is reasonable as his rates are within the range of $425 to $1000 for the Southern California area and have previously been approved on default judgments between $650-$700 by other judges. (Id., ¶¶ 3, 5-7.) The court approves an hourly rate of $700 for Mr. Elihu who declares that he spent 59.7 hours working on this case by “appearing at hearings and mediation, preparing case reviews and drafting and finalizing the complaint, right to sue, and discovery.” for a total of $32,700 total fees. (Id. at ¶ 10.) The court approves that fee, which is divided equally among the five plaintiffs. Finally, Kaveh Elihu declares that his associates have incurred a total of $186,800 in attorney’s fees and worked a total of 232 hours on this matter (Id. at ¶¶ 12-16.) Finally, Kaveh Elihu requests that fees for his paralegals, who he attests worked 136.6 hours and incurred a total amount of $17,237.50, be added to the total request for attorney’s fees. (Id.at ¶ 17.)

The trial court has broad authority to determine the amount of a reasonable fee.  (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal. 4th 1084, 1095.)  The award of attorney fees under section 1717 is governed by equitable principles. (Id.) The experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered and the trial judge’s decision will not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is clearly wrong, i.e., that it abused its discretion.  (Id.)

Given the newly submitted declarations, the court makes the following findings with respect to Plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees.

The court finds that the following hourly rates are reasonable for Plaintiffs’ counsel:

  1. Jae Hyun Kim: $450

  2. Karina Godoy: $300

  3. Raef Cogan: $300

  4. Rob Nichols: $350

  5. Bryan Gless: $450

  6. Paralegals: $125

Accordingly, the court awards total attorney’s fees in addition to those above as follows:

  1. Jae Hyun Kim: 136.6 X $450 = $61,470

  2. Karina Godoy: 4 X $300 = $ 1,200

  3. Raef Cogan: 40.1 X $300 = $12,030

  4. Rob Nichols: 3.5 X $350 = $ 1,225

  5. Bryan Gless: 47.8 X $450 = $21,510

  6. Paralegals: 136.6 X $125 = $17,075

TOTAL for all eight categories: $164,537, which is divided equally among all five plaintiffs, or $32,907.40 attributable to each plaintiff.

D. Costs

Plaintiffs requests a total of $7,402.87 ($1,480 per Plaintiff) for costs incurred in litigating this case. (See Declaration of Costs.) The costs is accounted for in the Declaration of Costs. The requests costs are recoverable. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5, subd. (a)(1), (4).) Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to the requested $7,403.87.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the court grants Plaintiffs’ request for default judgment as to M&R Apparel, Incorporated and will enter default judgments for each plaintiff in the following amounts:

Plaintiff Bacilisa Barrera is entitled to:

Principal $184,198.00

Attorney Fees $ 32,907.40

Cost $ 1,480.57

Interest $ 40,547.95

Total Award $259,133.92

Plaintiff Evelia Padilla is entitled to:

Principal Damages $110,178.63

Interest $ 25,836.10

Costs $ 1,480.57

Attorney Fees $ 32,907.40

Total Award $170,402.70

Plaintiff Maria Rodriguez is entitled to:

Principal $222,275.63

Attorney Fees $ 32,907.40

Cost $ 1,480.57

Interest $ 45,317.00

Total Award $301,980.60

Plaintiff Juan Madrigal Cruz

Principal $140,204.63

Attorney Fees $ 32,907.40

Interests $ 25,836.00

Costs $ 1,480.57

Total Award $200,428.60

Plaintiff Estela Reyes

Principal $192,070.63

Attorney Fees $ 32,907.40

Interests $ 40,317.00

Costs $ 1,480.57

Total Award $266,775.60

Counsel for Plaintiffs to prepare the judgments.

Case Number: BC630170    Hearing Date: November 07, 2019    Dept: 37

HEARING DATE: November 7, 2019

CASE NUMBER: BC630170

DEFAULT ENTERED: October 11, 2019

CASE NAME: Bacilisa Barrera, et al. v. M & R Apparel, Inc.

SUBJECT: Plaintiffs’ Application for Default Judgment against M & R Apparel, Inc.

RECOMMENDATION: The court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Application for Default Judgment against M&R Apparel, Inc.

BACKGROUND

This employment action arises from allegations that Defendant M & R Apparel, Inc. (“M&R”) engaged in violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) and the Labor Code with respect to former employees Plaintiffs Bacilisa Barrera (“Barrera”), Juan Madrigal (“Madrigal”), Elvia Padilla (“Padilla”), Estela Reyes (“Reyes”) and Maria Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”). The Complaint alleges that Defendant Michelle Ching (“Ching”) was a supervisory or managerial employee of M&R.

In the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege 18 causes of action. Plaintiff Padilla asserts: (1) the first cause of action for discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) the second cause of action for retaliation in violation of the FEHA; (3) the third cause of action for failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of the FEHA; (4) the fourth cause of action for failure to provide reasonable accommodations in violation of the FEHA; (5) the fifth cause of action for failure to engage in a good faith interactive process in violation of the FEHA; (6) the sixth cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and (7) the seventh cause of action for declaratory judgment.

Plaintiffs Padilla and Rodrigues assert: the ninth cause of action for retaliation in violation of Labor Code, §§ 1102.5 and 1102.5. Plaintiff Reyes asserts the eighth cause of action for retaliation in violation of Labor Code, § 98.6.

All Plaintiffs assert: (1) the tenth cause of action for failure to pay wages due; (2) the eleventh cause of action for failure to pay minimum wages; (3) the twelfth cause of action for failure to pay overtime compensation; (4) the thirteenth cause of action for failure to provide rest breaks; (5) the fourteenth cause of action for failure to furnish wage and hour statements; (6) the sixteenth cause of action for unfair competition in violation of Business and Professions Code, §§ 17200, et seq.; (7) the seventeenth cause of action under the Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”); and (8) the eighteenth cause of action for failure to permit inspection of personnel and payroll records. Plaintiffs Barrera, Padilla, Reyes, and Rodriguez assert the fifteenth cause of action for waiting time penalties.

M&R filed its Answer on October 12, 2016 and appeared in this action. On May 16, 2018, the court granted Defendant’s counsel Amity Law Group, LLP’s motion to be relieved as counsel. M&R did not appear for the May 29, 2018 final status conference and the court vacated the trial date and set a default prove-up hearing as to M&R for June 28, 2018. Plaintiff did not timely submit default papers for the June 28, 2018 hearing and default was not entered against M&R.

On November 13, 2017, Plaintiff named Cutie Apparel, Inc. (“Cutie Apparel”), Richard Bradford (“Bradford”), and MJC Apparel, Inc. (“MJC Apparel”) as Doe Defendants. Plaintiffs subsequently requested and received entry of default against Cutie Apparel, Bradford and MJV Apparel. The court entered default judgment against Cutie Apparel, Bradford and MJC Apparel

Plaintiff now seeks default judgment against M&R Apparel.

I. PROOF OF SERVICE/ ENTRY OF DEFAULT

On August 22, 2016, Plaintiffs filed proofs of service indicating that the Summons and Complaint were served on M&R Apparel, Incorporated by serving its authorized agent, Nicholas Brito, at 1742 Floradale Avenue, South El Monte, CA 91733. Defendant Ching was also served at 7142 Floradale Avenue, South El Monte, CA 91733. This is sufficient to comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure, section 415.10.

On August 28, 2019, the court struck M&R’s answer to the complaint.

On October 11, 2019, the court entered default against M&R. Plaintiffs filed a declaration of mailing indicating that a copy of the Request for Entry of Default was mailed on October 11, 2019 to Michelle Ching, 1742 Floradale Avenue, South El Monte, CA 91733. This is sufficient to comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure, section 587.

II. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800):

  1. Use of JC Form CIV-100 Yes

  2. Dismissal or judgment of non-parties to the judgment Yes

  3. Declaration of non-military status for each defendant Yes

  4. Summary of the case Yes

  5. 585(d) declarations/admissible evidence in support of judgment Yes

  6. Exhibits (as necessary) Insuff.

  7. Interest computation (as necessary) Yes

  8. Memorandum of costs Yes

  9. Request for attorney fees (per Local Rule 3.214) Yes

  10. Proposed judgment Yes

III. Discussion

Five separate Request for Default Judgment have been filed in this action by five individual Plaintiffs:

Plaintiff Evelia Padilla seeks:

Total - $189,012.80

Plaintiff Bacilisa Barrera seeks:

Total - $247,744.02

Plaintiff Estela Reyes seeks

Total - $285,385.70

Plaintiff Maria Rodriguez seeks:

Total - $320,366.10

Plaintiff Juan Madrigal Cruz seeks:

Total - $216,899.22

A. Principal Damages

Each of the five Plaintiffs have submitted a declaration in support of their request for principal damages. All Plaintiffs attests that they worked at Defendants’ company, M&R Apparel, Inc. and that throughout the cost of their employment, they regularly worked six (6) days per week, from approximately 8:00 am to 6:00 p.m. for a total of approximately 60 hours per week. All Plaintiffs also attests that despite working approximately 120 hours per pay period, they were only compensated for approximately only 60 hours every two weeks. Furthermore, all Plaintiffs also attests that they were never fully paid for minimum wages and an overtime premium. Thus,

Each of the plaintiff’s also attests they are entitled to recover liquidated damages pursuant to Labor Code § 1194.2 in an amount equal to the minimum wages unlawfully unpaid in the amounts set forth above. Thus,

Each of the Plaintiffs also attests that they are entitled to compensation for missed rest periods pursuant to Labor Code § 512 and 226.7(b). Thus,

Each of the Plaintiffs also attests that they are entitled to statutory penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 226.3, which penalizes an employer in the amount of $250 per employee per violation in an initial citation and one thousand dollars per employee for each violation in a subsequent citation. Thus,

Each of the Plaintiffs also attests that they are entitled to civil penalties for Defendant’s violation of Labor Code § 558, which penalizes Defendants $50.00 for the first violation and $100.00 for the remaining pay periods. Thus,

Each of the Plaintiffs also establish that they are entitled to statutory penalties in the amount of:

  1. $4,000 for Defendant’s failure to provide accurate wage statements pursuant to Labor § 226

  2. $750 for Defendant’s failure to provide a copy of the personnel records under Labor Code § 1198.5

  3. $750 for Defendant’s failure to provide itemized wage statements pursuant to Labor Code § 226(c)

  4. $232.63 pursuant to claims brought under Labor Code § 2699(f)

All Plaintiffs except Madrigal Cruz attests that they are entitled to statutory penalties in the amount of $3,780.00 for Defendants failure to pay wages upon termination of employment pursuant to Labor Code § 203.

Lastly, Plaintiff Estela Reyes establishes that she is entitled to statutory penalties in the amount of $10,000.00 pursuant to Labor Code § 98.6(b) (Reyes Decl. ¶ 14) and Plaintiffs Evelia Padilla and Maria Rodriguez attests that they are entitled to statutory penalties in the amount of $10,000 pursuant to Labor Code § 1102.5. (Padilla Decl. ¶ 10; Rodriguez ¶ 13.)

B. Interest

Each Plaintiff seeks pre-judgment interest on each individual principal damages award based on a 10% annual interest rate calculated from the last date of work until the date that the interest was calculated. Based on the Declaration Re: Interest filed for each Plaintiff,

Plaintiff Bacilisa Barrera is entitled to interest in the amount of $ 40,547.95

Plaintiff Evelia Padilla is entitled to interest in the amount of $25,836.10

Plaintiff Juan Madrigal Cruz is entitled to interest in the amount of $25,836.00

Plaintiff Estela Reyes is entitled to interest in the amount of $40,317.00

Plaintiff Maria Rodriguez is entitled to interest in the amount of $45,317.00

C. Attorney Fees

Plaintiff Evelia Padilla, Bacilisa Barrera, and Estela Reyes each seek an attorney fees award in the amount of $41,404,50. Plaintiffs Maria Rodriguez and Juan Madrigal Cruz each seek attorney fees in the amount of $51,517.50. In sum, Plaintiffs seek a total attorney fees award in the amount of $231,906.1.

In support of this requests, Plaintiffs submit the Declaration of Catherine Wagner Calderaro. Attached to the Declaration of Catherine Wagner Calderaro appears to be billing records that Plaintiff’s counsel prepared in support of its request for attorney fees.

On August 28, 2019, the court found that attorney Calderaro’s records were not properly authenticated and that the rates are unsupported by the declaration. As of November 4, 2019, the docket does not reflect that a new declaration has been filed to correct either of the two previous identified deficiencies.

D. Costs

Plaintiffs requests a total of $7,402.87 ($1,480 per Plaintiff) for costs incurred in litigating this case. (See Declaration of Costs.) The costs is accounted for in the Declaration of Costs. The requests costs are recoverable. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5, subd. (a)(1), (4).) Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to the requested $7,403.87.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the court grants Plaintiffs’ request for default judgment as to M&R Apparel, Incorporated and enters default judgment in the following amounts:

Plaintiff Bacilisa Barrera is entitled to:

Principal $184,198.00

Attorney Fees $3,731.98

Cost $1,480

Interest $ 40,547.95

Total Award $229,957.93

Plaintiff Evelia Padilla is entitled to:

Principal Damages $110,178.63

Interest $25,836.10

Costs $1,480.57

Attorney Fees $2,991.79

Total Award $140,487.09

Plaintiff Maria Rodriguez is entitled to:

Principal $222,275.63

Attorney Fees $4,112.76

Cost $1,480.57

Interest $45,317.00

Total Award $273,185.96

Plaintiff Juan Madrigal Cruz

Principal $140,204.63

Attorney Fees $3,292.05

Interests $25,836.00

Costs $1480.57

Total Award $170,813.25

Plaintiff Estela Reyes

Principal $192,070.63

Attorney Fees $3,810.71

Interests $40,317.00

Costs $1480.57

Total Award $237,678.91