This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/23/2020 at 14:14:25 (UTC).

CARLOS CHAVEZ VS SECURITY AMERICA INC

Case Summary

On 02/08/2018 CARLOS CHAVEZ filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against SECURITY AMERICA 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 SAMANTHA P. JESSNER and GREGORY W. ALARCON. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3425

  • Filing Date:

    02/08/2018

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Wrongful Termination

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

SAMANTHA P. JESSNER

GREGORY W. ALARCON

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

CHAVEZ CARLOS

Defendants and Respondents

SECUITY AMERICA INC

DOES 1 TO 100

GARNICA MARY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

MANCINI MARCUS A. ESQ.

SOLORZANO ARMANDO MIGUEL

TRIPLETT PAMELA ANN

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

NEAL NA'SHAUN L.

 

Court Documents

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

11/16/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF CARLOS CHAVEZ IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT BY COURT [PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT SECTION 388; CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCE

11/20/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF CARLOS CHAVEZ IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT BY COURT [PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT SECTION 388; CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCE

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

11/20/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Order - ORDER CONTINUING DEFAULT

10/30/2020: Order - ORDER CONTINUING DEFAULT

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DEFAULT)

10/30/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DEFAULT)

Order - ORDER CONTINUING DEFAULT

8/28/2020: Order - ORDER CONTINUING DEFAULT

Declaration - DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF CARLOS CHAVEZ IN SUPPORT OF AMENDED [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS SECURITY AMERICA, INC. AND MARY GARNICA

7/16/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF CARLOS CHAVEZ IN SUPPORT OF AMENDED [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS SECURITY AMERICA, INC. AND MARY GARNICA

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: CONTINUANCE)

6/5/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: CONTINUANCE)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL)

3/2/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL)

Declaration - DECLARATION OF TARA J. LICATA, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF CARLOS CHAVEZ' AMENDED [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS SECURITY AMERICA, INC. AND MARY GARNIC

1/29/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF TARA J. LICATA, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF CARLOS CHAVEZ' AMENDED [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS SECURITY AMERICA, INC. AND MARY GARNIC

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL)

10/23/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER)

9/25/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER)

Proof of Personal Service

4/5/2019: Proof of Personal Service

Minute Order -

5/24/2018: Minute Order -

Minute Order -

5/18/2018: Minute Order -

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

5/1/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

3/14/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

SUMMONS -

2/8/2018: SUMMONS -

39 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/05/2021
  • Hearing02/05/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 36 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: DEFAULT and/or DISMISSAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Carlos Chavez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 36, Gregory W. Alarcon, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (DEFAULT and/or DISMISSAL) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2020
  • DocketOrder (denying default); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: DEFAULT and/or DISMISSAL)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/02/2020
  • DocketNotice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2020
  • DocketDeclaration (Declaration of Plaintiff Carlos Chavez in Support of Request for Entry of Default By Court [Pursuant to California Rules of Court Section 388; California Code of Civil Procedure Section 585(b)]); Filed by Carlos Chavez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2020
  • DocketDeclaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment; Filed by Carlos Chavez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2020
  • DocketSummary of the Case; Filed by Carlos Chavez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2020
  • DocketDeclaration (Declaration of Pamela A. Triplett, Esq., in Support of Request for Entry of Default By Court [Pursuant to California Rules of Court Section 388; California Code of Civil Procedure Section 585(b)]); Filed by Carlos Chavez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
72 More Docket Entries
  • 03/14/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2018
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 31; (Affidavit of Prejudice; Case is reassigned) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2018
  • DocketMinute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2018
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2018-02-22 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/09/2018
  • DocketPLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL'S DECLARATION PURSUANT TO CCP 170.6

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/09/2018
  • DocketChallenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Carlos Chavez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Carlos Chavez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2018
  • DocketPLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: (1) FOR PERCEIVED AND/OR PHYSICAL DISABILITY HARASSMENT, DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 12940 ET SEQ. [FEHA]; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC693425    Hearing Date: December 07, 2020    Dept: 36

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 36

CARLOS CHAVEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

SECURITY AMERICA, INC.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC693425

Hearing Date: 12/7/2020

[TENTATIVE] RULING RE: Order to Show Cause Re: Default

Plaintiff’s application for default judgment against Defendant Mary Garnica is denied without prejudice.

Judgment against Defendant Mary Garnica

On July 22, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel informed the court the matter will proceed by way of default. Plaintiff filed a request for entry of judgment on November 13, 2020, which was entered that day. Plaintiff filed default prove-up documents on November 20, 2020. Plaintiff has thus provided grounds for this court’s jurisdiction.

Corporations Code, section 2011

Plaintiff requests default judgment against Ms. Garnica as President, Sole Director and Shareholder of Defendant Security America, Inc. under a shareholder theory pursuant to California Corporations Code, section 2011 (See Triplett Decl. ¶¶ 14-15, 18-19) which provides:

(a)(1) Causes of action against a dissolved corporation, whether arising before or after the dissolution of the corporation, may be enforced against any of the following:

(A) Against the dissolved corporation, to the extent of its undistributed assets, including, without limitation, any insurance assets held by the corporation that may be available to satisfy claims.

(B) If any of the assets of the dissolved corporation have been distributed to shareholders, against shareholders of the dissolved corporation to the extent of their pro rata share of the claim or to the extent of the corporate assets distributed to them upon dissolution of the corporation, whichever is less.

A shareholder's total liability under this section may not exceed the total amount of assets of the dissolved corporation distributed to the shareholder upon dissolution of the corporation.

(Corp. Code, § 2011(a)(1).)

Plaintiff’s counsel attests that the corporation defendant Security America, Inc. was dissolved on January 8, 2019. (Triplett Decl. ¶ 5.)

Plaintiff’s counsel states that “the total distributed assets of Defendant Security America, Inc. cannot be determined without either Defendant Security America, Inc. or Defendant Mary Garnica’s participation in this lawsuit . . . .” (Triplett Decl. ¶ 17.) Plaintiff has not provided any support that any of the assets of the dissolved corporation have been distributed to Ms. Garnica. The court thus does not award default judgment against Ms. Garnica as a shareholder of dissolved corporation pursuant to Corporations Code section 2011(a)(1)(B), which provides for enforcement: “If any of the assets of the dissolved corporation have been distributed to shareholders, against shareholders . . . .” (Corp. Code, § 2011(a)(1)(B) (emphasis added).) For the same reason, Plaintiff has also not shown that the claims exceed the corporation’s undistributed assets.

Furthermore, Plaintiff seeks judgment against Ms. Garnica in the full amount rather than on Ms. Garnica’s “pro rata share of the claim or to the extent of the corporate assets distributed to [her] upon dissolution of the corporation, whichever is less.” (Corp. Code,  § 2011(a)(1)(B).)

The court does not find authority to award default judgment based on Pulte Homes Corp. v. Williams Mechanical. Inc. (2016) 206 Cal.App.5th 267, which discusses a plaintiff’s ability to proceed against a dissolved corporation but does not contemplate proceeding against an individual person under a shareholder liability theory.

Plaintiff’s application for default judgment against Defendant Mary Garnica is denied without prejudice.

Amounts in Complaint

In addition, Plaintiff’s request for damages on default is limited by the amount stated in Plaintiff’s Complaint. “The relief granted to the plaintiff, if there is no answer, cannot exceed that demanded in the complaint . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 580.) “The primary purpose of this section is to insure that defendants in cases which involve a default judgment have adequate notice of the judgments that may be taken against them.” (Becker v. S.P.V. Construction Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 489, 493.) “[A] prayer for damages according to proof passes muster under section 580 only if a specific amount of damages is alleged in the body of the complaint.” (Id. at 494.)

Here, the prayer for damages in the Complaint requests general and special damages in amounts not specified. The specific amounts requested regarding most damages are not included in the body of the Complaint; the only specific amount requested is $10,000 for a civil penalty. (Compl. ¶ 82; 24:15-16.)

Dated: ____________________________

Gregory Alarcon

Superior Court Judge

Case Number: BC693425    Hearing Date: October 30, 2020    Dept: 36

 

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 36

CARLOS CHAVEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

SECURITY AMERICA, INC.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC693425

Hearing Date: 10/30/2020

[TENTATIVE] RULING RE: Order to Show Cause Re: Default

The Order to Show Cause hearing re: Default is continued to December 7, 2020 for Plaintiff to obtain entry of default and file default prove-up papers addressing the issues discussed below within 30 days.

The Order to Show Cause hearing re: Dismissal is continued to the same date.

Case Background

The court held a bench trial in this action on September 9, 2019. At the time of trial, Defendant Security America, Inc. had filed an Answer. Defendant Mary Garnica had been substituted in as a Doe defendant and served, and there is no record that default had been entered against her.

At trial, there were no appearances for Defendants. Counsel for Plaintiff was Armando Miguel Solorzano. Plaintiff testified on his own behalf. The minute order does not disclose that any evidence was offered or entered into the record at trial, or that default was taken against Ms. Garnica. The court found in Plaintiff’s favor, and ordered Plaintiff to submit a proposed judgment by September 20, 2019.

Plaintiff submitted two proposed judgments, which were each rejected. The court set an OSC Re: Dismissal. Plaintiff submitted a third proposed judgment on October 23, 2019.

The court by telephonic conference on December 2, 2019, ordered Plaintiff to submit a declaration on the amounts in the October 23, 2019 proposed judgment. Having not received a declaration by December 11, 2019, the court scheduled an OSC Re: Dismissal for February 4, 2020. On January 29, 2020, Plaintiff filed a declaration. On February 2, 2020, the OSC Re: Dismissal was continued to March 2, 2020. On March 2, 2020, Plaintiff stated that all default documents had been filed.

On March 2, 2020 at the OSC Re: Dismissal, Counsel informed the court that all default documents have been filed, and the court took the matter under submission. On April 30, 2020 the court issued a ruling, which addressed: (1) the declaration and other evidence before the court; (2) liability of the individual defendant Mary Garnica, (3) documents in support of default, and (4) the ability to cure by supplemental declaration.

On July 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed three declarations in support of judgment. On July 22, 2020, at the OSC Re: Dismissal, Plaintiff represented that all default documents had been submitted. The court set an Order to Show Cause Re: Default. The hearing was continued for Plaintiff to file supplemental documents regarding the court’s jurisdiction over Ms. Garnica and in support of Plaintiff’s damages against Defendant Security America, Inc.

Judgment against Defendant Mary Garnica

On July 22, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel informed the court the matter will proceed by way of default. Plaintiff’s most recent proposed judgment requests the court to enter judgment after court trial against Defendant Mary Garnica as well as against Defendant Security America, Inc.

As this court has previously noted, there is no record that default has been entered against Ms. Garnica in this action. Plaintiff has filed the declaration of Pamela A. Triplett in which Plaintiff’s counsel attests to understanding that by proceeding against the non-answering defendant at trial, the foregoing would function as a default. (See Triplett Decl. (filed 10/5/20), at ¶¶ 9-10.) Next, the court finds no record that Ms. Garnica had received notice of the trial date; the parties submitted a Stipulation and Order to continue trial and related dates, stipulating that “The new trial date will be Monday, September 16, 2019, or as soon thereafter as the Court is available.” However, the Order stating the final date of trial was entered on April 8, 2019, three days after the proof of service states that a Stipulation Package was served on Ms. Garnica; as such there is no showing on the court’s record that Ms. Garnica had received notice of the trial date. (CCP § 594(a).) Without record of an entry of default before the court, the court finds no grounds for its personal jurisdiction over Ms. Garnica in the absence of Ms. Garnica’s general appearance.

The court next notes that the declarations filed regarding Ms. Garnica’s liability argues Ms. Garnica’s personal liability as President and sole director of Defendant Security America, Inc., which is a dissolved corporation. (See Triplett Decl. (filed 9/10/20), at ¶ 12.) Plaintiff’s default prove-up papers are to specifically address the legal eligibility and procedures for Plaintiff to proceed against a dissolved corporation, in particular, under California Corporation Code §§ 2011(a)(1)(A), regarding insurance assets, and Corporation Code §§ 2011(a)(1)(B), regarding shareholders of the corporation; facts in support of Plaintiff’s eligibility to use these statutory provisions, and for Plaintiff to proceed against Ms. Garnica under these provisions.

Date: 10/30/20 ___________________________________

Judge of the Superior Court