Default Prove Up Hearing
26CV173202: VINSON vs COMMUNITY GRAINS, LLC,, et al. 07/31/2026 Default Prove Up Hearing in Department 25
Tentative Ruling - 07/31/2026 Jenna Whitman
ORDER RE: CASE MANAGEMENT
The Court has ordered the following after review of the case.
PLAINTIFF TO APPEAR.
California's default judgment framework does not permit a court to treat every allegation in a complaint as admitted simply because a defendant failed to answer. As the California Court of Appeal explained in Molen v. Friedman (1988) 64 Cal.App.4th 1149, "a defendant who fails to answer admits only facts that are well pleaded." If the complaint fails to state a cause of action or the allegations do not support the demand for relief, "the plaintiff is no more entitled to that relief by default judgment than if the defendant had expressly admitted all the allegations. Such a default judgment is erroneous, and will be reversed on appeal." This rule directly limits the scope of what a court may award at a default prove-up hearing and bars relief that rests solely on conclusory or legally insufficient pleading.
Upon careful review, there are numerous claims which are for various reasons not well pleaded, and therefore cannot be the basis of a default judgment:
1. Causes of Action and claims for relief (e.g., prejudgment interest or penalties for nonpayment of wages) that, in light of Plaintiff's prior small claims action, are barred by res judicata and the primary rights doctrine. (See Starbuzz Int'l, Inc. v. California Dep't of Tax & Fee Admin. (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 915, 923-924 [explaining res judicata and primary rights doctrine]; Allstate Ins. Co. v. Mel Rapton, Inc. (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 901, 913-914 [explaining that [t]his aspect of res judicata applies to judgments rendered by the small claims court" and that a litigant "cannot avoid the impact of the rule against splitting [a] cause of action by choosing for his first foray a tribunal of limited jurisdiction"].)
Put simply, the primary right at issue in Plaintiffs small claims case was to be paid unearned wages. Plaintiff sought wages, PTO and stipends, but could also have brought an action for other relief, including prejudgment interest thereon, statutory penalties, and contractual and tort claims premised upon the same wrongful conduct, and the remedies these causes of action provide. He did not. The valid final judgment in small claims court merged the entire cause of action into that judgment and now bars any subsequent suit on the same primary right, to receive earned wages timely, including claims seeking additional forms of relief that could have been sought in the first proceeding.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
2. Liability based upon the alter ego doctrine, which even if the allegations are taken as true, do not establish such liability. (Molen, supra, at 1156, citing Vasey v. California Dance Co. (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 742.)
3. Claims against the Klein Family Trust (Portico Mgmt. Grp., LLC v. Harrison (2011) 202 26CV173202: VINSON vs COMMUNITY GRAINS, LLC,, et al. 07/31/2026 Default Prove Up Hearing in Department 25 Cal.App.4th 464, 475) or, as Plaintiff may have intended, against the Kleins in their representative capacity as trustees. As to the latter, as plaintiff has not pleaded facts placing his claims within the requirements of Probate Code § 18004 [which allows claims to be asserted against trustees in their representative capacity for three categories of claims: contracts entered into by trustees in their representative capacity, obligations arising from ownership or control of trust property, and torts committed in the course of trust administration] or § 18200 [which merely provides that the assets of a revocable trust are subject to the personal creditors of settlors, not of trustees as alleged here].
4. A direct Labor Code § 210 claim, which Plaintiff has acknowledged he cannot pursue here.
5. Personal Liability for Wage Violations Labor Code § 558.1. This provision only provides for personal liability of an individual other than the employer for specified wage statement and reimbursement claims. It cannot be used to create indirect liability for other employment claims the torts committed by the employer.
The causes of action that remain are:
1. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy (Tameny) 2. Retaliation Labor Code § 1102.5 (Whistleblower) 3. Retaliation Labor Code § 98.6 (Labor Complaint Retaliation) 9. Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements Labor Code § 226 10. Failure to Allow Inspection of Wage Records Labor Code § 226(b) 11. Failure to Produce Personnel and Payroll Records Labor Code § 1198.5 12. Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses Labor Code § 2802 19. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (arising out of retaliation or other tortious activity, not nonpayment of wages) 20. Personal Liability for Wage Violations Labor Code § 558.1 (limited as noted above)
Economic Damages and penalties may be proved through sworn declaration. (Code Civil Procedure, § 585 subd. (d).) The Court accepts Plaintiff's documentary evidence, provided pursuant to sworn declaration, of the following damages:
a. lost wages post termination of $56,250.09 (which Plaintiff calculates at 39 weeks at $1,442.31, based upon new employment as of 12/2/2024) b. wage-statement penalties of $450.00 computed by the statutory formula (Lab. Code, § 226(e)) c. records penalties of $1,500.00 (Lab. Code, §§ 226(f), 1198.5(k));
General damages and other subjective/discretionary relief must be established through live testimony. Plaintiff should be prepared to give testimony and evidence as to the following requests for damages:
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
26CV173202: VINSON vs COMMUNITY GRAINS, LLC,, et al. 07/31/2026 Default Prove Up Hearing in Department 25 d. the maximum penalty (of $10,000.00) for retaliation under Labor Code, § 98.6(b)(3)) e. damages (of $100,000) for emotional distress
If Plaintiff still seeks prejudgment interest, he must provide new calculations, as this relief only applies to the economic damages and penalties a-c, listed above.
In light of the foregoing, the Court is inclined to enter judgment as follows:
No judgment will be entered against Robert or Margaret Klein in their capacities as trustees.
No judgment will be entered against Oliveto G.P., Inc. or Oliveto Partners, Ltd.
Judgment may be entered against Margaret Klein in her individual capacity (jointly and severally with Robert Klein and Community Grains, LLC) solely for claims under Labor Code §§ 2802 (reimbursements), 226 (wage statements/records penalties) [$2077.53]. Plaintiff has not pleaded any facts involving her in Plaintiff's termination or establishing that she is the alter ego of any other defendant.
Judgment may be entered Robert Klein, in his individual capacity, and Community Grains, LLC, jointly and severally, on all claims, for the entire amount of damages and prejudgment interest.
Plaintiff will be directed to provide a proposed judgment (JUD-100).