This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/20/2021 at 06:57:15 (UTC).

PRIME STAFF INC VS PARTNERSHIP STAFFING SOLUTIONS LLC

Case Summary

On 06/16/2017 PRIME STAFF INC filed a Contract - Business lawsuit against PARTNERSHIP STAFFING SOLUTIONS LLC. 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, WILLIAM F. FAHEY, MICHAEL J. RAPHAEL and DENNIS J. LANDIN. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5436

  • Filing Date:

    06/16/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Business

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

SAMANTHA P. JESSNER

WILLIAM F. FAHEY

MICHAEL J. RAPHAEL

DENNIS J. LANDIN

 

Party Details

Petitioners, Cross Defendants and Plaintiffs

PRIME STAFF INC

ROES 1-50

PRIME STAFF INC.

GASPAR REBECCA

Respondents and Defendants

ROBLEDO JUDITH

PARTNERSHIP STAFFING SOLUTIONS LLC

DOES 1 TO 50

Respondent, Cross Plaintiff and Defendant

PARTNERSHIP STAFFING SOLUTIONS LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorney

MCDERMED JAMES M. ESQ

Respondent and Defendant Attorneys

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

BERLE JOELLE ADRIENNE

ROSENTHAL MARGARET ESQ.

Cross Plaintiff Attorney

SAYER MICHAEL EASTON

 

Court Documents

Motion re: - Motion for Relief from Stay Civil Proceedings to File Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

12/28/2018: Motion re: - Motion for Relief from Stay Civil Proceedings to File Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Motion for Order - MOTION FOR ORDER TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF JOELLE A. BERLE

7/19/2019: Motion for Order - MOTION FOR ORDER TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF JOELLE A. BERLE

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE AND STATUS OF PLAINTIFF'S REPRESENTA...)

7/30/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE AND STATUS OF PLAINTIFF'S REPRESENTA...)

Notice of Ruling

7/31/2019: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION - OTHER OF DEFENDANTS PARTNERSHIP STAFFING ...)

9/23/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION - OTHER OF DEFENDANTS PARTNERSHIP STAFFING ...)

Notice of Ruling

9/25/2019: Notice of Ruling

Answer

9/25/2019: Answer

Motion for Leave to Amend - MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND TO FILE FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

11/6/2019: Motion for Leave to Amend - MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND TO FILE FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

11/7/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

Notice of Ruling

11/7/2019: Notice of Ruling

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF AMENDED HEARING DATE FOR CROSS-COMPLAINANT PARTNERSHIP STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLCS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

11/7/2019: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF AMENDED HEARING DATE FOR CROSS-COMPLAINANT PARTNERSHIP STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLCS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

Notice of Ruling

1/13/2020: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAIN...)

1/13/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAIN...)

Summons - SUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINT

1/14/2020: Summons - SUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINT

Amended Complaint - 1ST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

1/17/2020: Amended Complaint - 1ST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

Proof of Personal Service

2/4/2020: Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Personal Service

2/4/2020: Proof of Personal Service

Notice - NOTICE STATEMENT OF DAMAGES (C.C.P. 425.115)

3/6/2020: Notice - NOTICE STATEMENT OF DAMAGES (C.C.P. 425.115)

98 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/06/2021
  • DocketAffidavit of Identity and Order; Filed by Partnership Staffing Solutions LLC (Cross-Complainant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/17/2021
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by Partnership Staffing Solutions LLC (Cross-Complainant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/21/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 51, Dennis J. Landin, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Entry of Default Judgment) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/04/2020
  • DocketNotice of Entry of Judgment / Dismissal / Other Order; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/04/2020
  • DocketJudgment By Court, By Default; Filed by Partnership Staffing Solutions LLC (Cross-Complainant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/18/2020
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Partnership Staffing Solutions LLC (Cross-Complainant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/18/2020
  • DocketRequest For Entry of Judgment (Enforcement of Judgment); Filed by Partnership Staffing Solutions LLC (Cross-Complainant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/18/2020
  • DocketDeclaration (of Joelle A. Berle regarding November 16, 2020 Tentative Ruling); Filed by Partnership Staffing Solutions LLC (Cross-Complainant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/13/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 51, Dennis J. Landin, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Entry of Default Judgment) - Held - Continued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/13/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Entry of Default Judgment)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
159 More Docket Entries
  • 07/17/2017
  • DocketFIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/17/2017
  • DocketFirst Amended Complaint; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/17/2017
  • DocketAmended Complaint; Filed by null

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/07/2017
  • DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/07/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/07/2017
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/07/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/16/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by null

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/16/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/16/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200, ET SEQ.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****5436    Hearing Date: January 13, 2020    Dept: 51

Defendant's motion to amend cross complaint is granted.


Case Number: ****5436    Hearing Date: December 21, 2020    Dept: 51

Prime Staff, Inc. v. Partnership Staffing Solutions, LLC, ****5436

Ruling re: default judgment.

Cross-Complainant’s request for default judgment came on for hearing on November 16, 2020. At that time, this Court informed counsel for the Cross-Complainant that there was insufficient information regarding the defendants’ resources to properly determine punitive damages. When this Court stated that it appeared that all other damages sought appeared to be appropriate, counsel withdrew the punitive damages request. The Court informed counsel that it would further review the documents in support of the default judgment and let her know if there were any other issues that would need to be addressed and then continued the matter to December 21, 2020. Upon that review, it appears that this Court does not have jurisdiction to issue a judgment of more than $800,000 for the following reasons:

The First Amended Cross-Complaint ("FACC") states in its prayer for relief that it seeks "actual damages in excess of $800,000" and "actual damages that continue to accrue to be proven at trial" along with prejudgment interests, and other costs and fees.  The actual damage requested in the default judgment exceeds that amount for a total of $1,044,000.59 which includes $851,621.67 for workers' compensation insurance premiums paid to Cross-Defendant, IRS and EDD penalties and fees and costs for workers' compensation claims and $192,378.92 for "administrative fees."

After filing the FACC, the Cross-Complainant did serve a Statement of Damages under CCP 425.115 to give notice that it seeks "$192,378.92" for administrative fees in addition to the actual damages of "$800,000" as requested in the FACC. However, the Statement of Damages under CCP 425.115 does not cure the defective prayer because it is only used to preserve the right to seek punitive damages, not actual damages, and, even if it could be used for such purpose, "[s]tatement of damages are used only in personal injury and wrongful death.... [Citation.] In all other cases, when recovering damages in a default judgment, the plaintiff is limited to the damages specified in the complaint. [Citations.]" Levine v. Smith (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1136–1137; Sole Energy Co. v. Hodges (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 199, 206, fn. 4.

In Electronic Funds Solutions, LLC v. Murphy (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1161, the trial court struck the defendant's answer in an action for misappropriation of trade secrets. The complaint sought damages “ ‘in an amount in excess of $50,000 and according to proof.’ ” Id., at p. 1168. Plaintiff filed a statement of damages (; 425.11) before a default judgment was entered against defendant for $24,040,272 damages. The Court of Appeal held CCP 580 limited the trial court's jurisdiction and that the default judgment could not exceed the amount demanded in the complaint. “[C]ourts have subjected section 580 to a ‘strict construction.’ [Citation.] Strictly construed, serving a statement of damages cannot satisfy section 580 in an action not involving personal injury or wrongful death.” Id., at p. 1176.

Upon review of the FACC, the Court could not find any language referencing the administrative fees, and even if those fees were requested as part of the actual damages, “in excess of” a specified dollar amount “and according to proof” limits the amount of the award in a default judgment to that dollar amount. Janssen v Luu (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 272, 279; Behm v Clear View Technols. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1, 16 (“In excess of” a specified dollar amount limits the amount of the award in a default judgment to “no more than” that dollar amount.) Therefore, the Court is limited in its jurisdiction by CCP 580 to enter a default judgment of which the compensatory damage does not exceed the amount demanded in the FACC. In the event Cross-Complainant still wishes to obtain the additional damages, it must revise the amount for the compensatory damage and prejudgment interest and resubmit the default judgment accordingly. 

Further, the Cross-Complainant asks for attorney fees but only submits a declaration that states it "has incurred $139,945.05 in legal fees and costs to pursue its claims" without any proof or breakdown of the fees. On the other hand, the FACC and the Cross-Complainant's additional declarations state that the request is based upon the terms of the parties' agreement that provides for recovery of reasonable attorney fees. In such case, the Local Rule 3.214(a) applies and the Court orders the Cross-Complainant to revise and reduce the amount in accordance with the rule and the new compensatory damage.

Clerk to give notice

_____________________________

Dennis J. Landin, Judge of the Superior Court



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where PARTNERSHIP STAFFING SOLUTIONS A CALIFORNIA CORPORTION is a litigant

Latest cases where PRIME STAFF INC. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer SAYER, MICHAEL E.