This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/15/2019 at 12:03:37 (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 Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5436

  • Filing Date:

    06/16/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Business

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

SAMANTHA P. JESSNER

WILLIAM F. FAHEY

MICHAEL J. RAPHAEL

DENNIS J. LANDIN

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Cross Defendants

PRIME STAFF INC

ROES 1-50

PRIME STAFF INC.

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

ROBLEDO JUDITH

PARTNERSHIP STAFFING SOLUTIONS LLC

DOES 1 TO 50

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

MCDERMED JAMES M. ESQ

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

BERLE JOELLE ADRIENNE

ROSENTHAL MARGARET ESQ.

 

Court Documents

RULING RE: MOTION TO STAY

3/22/2018: RULING RE: MOTION TO STAY

NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

8/7/2018: NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

Motion re:

12/28/2018: Motion re:

Motion re:

2/15/2019: Motion re:

Opposition

2/15/2019: Opposition

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

3/7/2019: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Minute Order

4/11/2019: Minute Order

Order

5/17/2019: Order

Proof of Service by Mail

5/17/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Minute Order

12/4/2017: Minute Order

Unknown

12/15/2017: Unknown

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SEALING/REDACTING PORTIONS OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; ETC

10/27/2017: EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SEALING/REDACTING PORTIONS OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; ETC

PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDICIAL OFFICER

10/27/2017: PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDICIAL OFFICER

Minute Order

10/10/2017: Minute Order

SUMMONS

6/16/2017: SUMMONS

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

7/7/2017: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

7/7/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Unknown

9/25/2017: Unknown

45 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/17/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 51, Dennis J. Landin, Presiding; Status Conference (Re Plaintiff's Representation) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 51, Dennis J. Landin, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - Other (Defendants And Cross-Complainant?s Notice Of Motion And Motion To Lift The Stay Of Civil Proceedings And For Leave To File A Motion To Amend Answer; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities; Declaration Of Joelle A. Berle) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion - Other Defendants And Cross-Complainant?s ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • Order (Ruling Re Motion to Lift the Stay of Civil Proceedings); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by Prime Staff Inc. (Cross-Defendant); Prime Staff Inc (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • Notice (Notice of Ruling Re: Defendants and Cross-Complainants's Motion to Lift The Stay of Civil Proceedings and for Leave to File a Motion to Amend Answer); Filed by Judith Robledo (Defendant); Partnership Staffing Solutions LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by Prime Staff Inc (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 51, Dennis J. Landin, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - Other (Defendants And Cross-Complainant?s Notice Of Motion And Motion To Lift The Stay Of Civil Proceedings And For Leave To File A Motion To Amend Answer; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities; Declaration Of Joelle A. Berle) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 51, Dennis J. Landin, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - Other (Defendants And Cross-Complainant?s Notice Of Motion And Motion To Lift The Stay Of Civil Proceedings And For Leave To File A Motion To Amend Answer; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities; Declaration Of Joelle A. Berle) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 51, Dennis J. Landin, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
86 More Docket Entries
  • 07/21/2017
  • Notice; Filed by Prime Staff Inc (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2017
  • First Amended Complaint; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2017
  • FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2017
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2017
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/16/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/16/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200, ET SEQ.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/16/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC665436    Hearing Date: December 21, 2020    Dept: 51

Prime Staff, Inc. v. Partnership Staffing Solutions, LLC, BC665436

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

Case Number: BC665436    Hearing Date: January 13, 2020    Dept: 51

Defendant's motion to amend cross complaint is granted.

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