Garcia v. Zavala et al

Filing 125

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT; VACATING HEARING. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 7, 2022. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2022)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Case 3:17-cv-06253-MMC Document 125 Filed 01/07/22 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ANGELICA GARCIA,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 17-cv-06253-MMC

v.
PASCUAL ZAVALA, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT,
FEES AND COSTS; VACATING
HEARING
Re: Doc. Nos. 113, 121

12
13

Before the Court is plaintiff Angelica Garcia’s (“Garcia”) Motion for Default

14

Judgment, brought pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and

15

filed October 7, 2021. By order filed November 8, 2021 (“November 8 Order”), the Court

16

afforded Garcia an opportunity to file supplementary materials, which Garcia

17

subsequently filed. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of the motion,

18

including the supplementary materials, the Court deems the matter suitable for decision

19

thereon, VACATES the hearing scheduled for January 14, 2022, and rules as follows:

20

1. To the extent Garcia seeks entry of default judgment against defendants

21

Pascual Zavala (“Zavala”) and P & Z Foods, Inc. (“P & Z Foods”), the motion, for the

22

reasons stated therein, will be granted.

23

2. To the extent Garcia seeks entry of default judgment against defendant P & Z

24

Group, Inc. (“P & Z Group”), the motion will be denied, as Garcia, for the reasons stated

25

in the Court’s November 8 Order (see November 8 Order at 2:3-22), has failed to allege

26

facts sufficient to support a finding that P & Z Group can be held liable, whether as her

27

employer, an alter ego of Zavala, or an alter ego of P & Z Foods. Although, in her

28

supplementary materials, Garcia has included declarations (see Suppl. Decl. of Stan S.

Case 3:17-cv-06253-MMC Document 125 Filed 01/07/22 Page 2 of 3

1

Mallison in Supp. of Pl.’s Mot. for Default J. (“Mallison Suppl. Decl.”) ¶ 2) and exhibits

2

(see id. Exs. 1-11) with regard to the third of the above-referenced theories of liability, the

3

allegations in Garcia’s operative complaint, namely, the Second Amended Complaint, are

4

“too conclusory” to state a claim for alter ego liability, see Sandoval v. Ali, 34 F. Supp. 3d

5

1031, 1040 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (noting, to state a claim for alter ego liability, “plaintiff must

6

allege specifically both of the elements” thereof, “as well as facts supporting each”

7

(internal quotation and citation omitted)), and facts that are “not established by the

8

pleadings” and claims that “are not well-pleaded . . . cannot support [a default] judgment,”

9

see Danning v. Lavine, 572 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1978); see also Alan Neuman
Prods., Inc. v. Albright, 862 F.2d 1388, 1392-93 (9th Cir. 1988) (finding “error to award a

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

default judgment” where complaint “fail[ed] properly to allege a claim”).

12

3. To the extent Garcia seeks an award of individual damages in the amount of

13

$63,278.821 under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code, the

14

motion will be granted. (See Woolfson Suppl. Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, 12, 43.)

15

4. To the extent Garcia seeks an award of civil penalties in the amount of

16

$270,770.24 under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, the motion will be granted.

17

(See Woolfson Suppl. Decl. ¶¶ 7-10.)

18

5. To the extent Garcia seeks an award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of

19

$179,776.69, incurred in connection with the above-titled action, the motion will be

20

granted, the Court finding both the hours expended and the hourly rates sought to be

21

reasonable. (See Decl. of Stan S. Mallison in Supp. of Pl.’s Mot. for Default J. (“Mallison

22

Decl.”) ¶¶ 39-56, Ex. 5.)2

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

This amount reflects Garcia’s revised calculation of individual damages (see
Decl. of Stan Mallison in Support of Pl.’s Notice of Errata Regarding Pl.’s Suppl. Briefing
Regarding Pl.’s Mot. for Default J. Ex. 1 (“Woolfson Suppl. Decl.”) ¶¶ 5-6), which
calculation addresses the deficiencies identified in the Court’s November 8 Order (see
Pl.’s Suppl. Brief at 3:28-4:1).
2

The Court recognizes that Garcia is not entitled to recover attorneys’ fees
incurred in connection with either her meal and rest period claims, see Kirby v. Immoos
Fire Prot., Inc., 53 Cal. 4th 1244, 1248 (2012) (holding attorneys’ fees “not authorized” for
meal or rest period claims), or her claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law
2

Case 3:17-cv-06253-MMC Document 125 Filed 01/07/22 Page 3 of 3

1

6. To the extent Garcia seeks an award of costs in the amount of $4,399.52,

2

incurred in connection with the above-titled action, the motion will be granted, the Court

3

finding the amount sought to be reasonable. (See Mallison Decl. Ex. 6.)

4

CONCLUSION

5

For the reasons stated above, Garcia’s motion for default judgment is hereby

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
1. To the extent Garcia seeks entry of default judgment against Zavala and P & Z
Foods, the motion is hereby GRANTED.
2. To the extent Garcia seeks entry of default judgment against P & Z Group, the
motion is hereby DENIED.
3. To the extent Garcia seeks individual damages, civil penalties, attorneys’ fees,

12

and costs, the motion is hereby GRANTED, and Garcia is awarded individual damages in

13

the amount of $63,278.82, civil penalties in the amount of $270,770.24, attorneys’ fees in

14

the amount of $179,776.69, and costs in the amount of $4,399.52, for a total amount of

15

$518,225.27.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: January 7, 2022
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(“UCL”), see De La Torre v. CashCall, Inc., 5 Cal. 5th 966, 993 (2018) (noting UCL does
not provide for attorneys’ fees). Such claims, however, are “inextricably intertwined with
[Garcia’s] other wage and hour claims for which fees are recoverable,” see Cruz v.
Fusion Buffet, Inc., 57 Cal. App. 5th 221, 235 (2020) (finding meal and rest period claims
share “common factual and legal issues” with wage claims); see also Pellegrino v. Robert
Half Int’l, Inc., 182 Cal. App. 4th 278, 289 (2010) (finding UCL claims “interrelated” with
“wage and hour claims upon which [said] claims were based”), and, consequently, the
Court “need not . . . apportion[]” the attorneys’ fees award among her respective claims,
see Cruz, 57 Cal. App. 5th at 235.
3