Default Prove Up
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
The request of Plaintiff Michael Vinson for entry of default judgment is GRANTED IN PART, as set forth below. In the interim, Plaintiff shall submit a new proposed judgment and a declaration revising his calculations for prejudgment interest. The Court will set a nonappearance compliance hearing for receipt of said materials and entry of judgment.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES. As the Court explained at the hearing, although this case is in a default posture, the Court nonetheless bears the burden, in connection with the default process, to act as gatekeeper, ensuring that only the appropriate claims get through. (Grappo v. McMills (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 996, 1000.) 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 explained in Molen v.
Friedman (1988) 64 Cal.App.4th 1149 at 1153, "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." (Id.) 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.
WELL PLEADED AND LEGALLY COGNIZABLE CLAIMS. Upon careful review, there are numerous claims which are not legally cognizable or are 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
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?”
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 he could also have brought an action for other relief, including prejudgment interest thereon, statutory penalties, and contractual and tort claims, all of which are premised upon the same primary right (to be paid for wages earned), and provide additional the remedies for violations of that right. Plaintiff did not do so. 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.
The claims that are not barred by res judicata are listed below. 26CV173202: VINSON vs COMMUNITY GRAINS, LLC,, et al. 07/31/2026 Default Prove Up Hearing in Department 25 2. Liability based upon the alter ego doctrine. Here, even if all of the allegations are taken as true, do not establish that each defendant is the alter ego of another, or that it would be unjust to observe the corporate form. (Molen, supra, at 1156, citing Vasey v. California Dance Co. (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 742.)
3. Claims against the Klein Family Trust or, as Plaintiff apparently intended, against the Kleins in their representative capacity as trustees. As to the former, a trust is merely a collection of assets and liabilities, and is not a proper defendant. (Portico Mgmt. Grp., LLC v. Harrison (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 464, 475.) As to the latter, plaintiff has not pleaded facts placing his claims within the ambit of Probate Code § 18004 [which allows three categories claims against a trustee: those arising from 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; it does not permit proceeding against trustees, as alleged here].
4. A direct Labor Code § 210 claim, which Plaintiff has acknowledged he cannot pursue here. Such claims can only be pursued through the Labor Commissioner or pursuant to Labor Code § 2699 (a representative action under the PAGA).
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.
MOTIONS FOR DISMISSAL. In light of the foregoing issues, Plaintiff requested dismissal without prejudice of his claims against the Trust (and the Kleins, solely in their capacity as Trustees), and Oliveto G.P., Inc. or Oliveto Partners, Ltd. The request is GRANTED.
PROOF OF REMAINING CLAIMS. The causes of action that remain against Robert Klein, Margaret Klein, and Community Grains, LLC 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)
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
Plaintiff has established his entitlement to economic damages and statutory, nondiscretionary penalties through his sworn declaration. (Code Civil Procedure, § 585 subd. (d).) The Court accepts Plaintiff's sworn declaration and documentary evidence, which establish his entitlement to the following damages:
a. lost wages post termination of $56,250.09 (calculated at 39 weeks at $1,442.31, based upon Plaintiff's 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))
Plaintiff testified, under oath, at the hearing, in support of his request for general damages and other subjective/discretionary relief. Plaintiff's testimony established that the retaliatory termination he suffered was intentional and egregious, in that Robert Klein and Community Grains, LLC terminated him, without cause or excuse, but rather in direct and prompt response to his reasonable efforts to protect his employment rights, including his right to prompt payment of wages earned. It did so, without explanation, when Community Grains, LLC owed Plaintiff substantial wages.
These facts support the imposition of the maximum penalty (of $10,000.00) for retaliation under Labor Code, § 98.6(b)(3) against Community Grains, LLC, as Plaintiff's employer, and Robert Klein, pursuant to Labor Code § 558.1. (As no facts were pleaded concerning the involvement of Margaret Klein in these specific events or qualifying her for derivative liability under section 98.6(b)(3), she is not liable for this portion of the judgment under section 558.1.)
Plaintiff also testified regarding the emotional distress that Defendants' conduct caused. Plaintiff testified that he endured frequent late or nonpayment of wages, which placed him and his growing family in a precarious financial situation, causing severe stress and anxiety. Plaintiff suffered humiliation and anguish as a result of his termination without any explanation, in response to his reasonable efforts to receive earned wages. In the 39 weeks during which Plaintiff was unemployed following his termination, he experienced frequent inability to sleep, severe anxiety, lost appetite, and social withdrawal.
The financial ramifications of Defendants' conduct were severe and affect Plaintiff and his family to this day, causing Plaintiff continuing distress and worry (which was evident from Plaintiff's demeanor on the stand). Taking into consideration the uncertainty, humiliation, worry and distress suffered by Plaintiff during his employment, during the 29 weeks he was unemployed, and to a lesser but still significant degree, to this day, the Court finds that an award of $100,000 in emotional distress damages, against Robert Klein and Community Grains, LLC, is supported by the evidence.
PREJUDGMENT INTEREST. As discussed at the hearing, prejudgment interest does not apply to plaintiff's general damages or the discretionary penalty for retaliation. Plaintiff should file a further declaration providing a revised calculation for prejudgment interest as it applies to each
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 of the awards of economic damages and penalties listed in a-c, listed above, through the anticipated date of judgment.
PROPOSED JUDGMENT. Plaintiff shall file a revised proposed judgment against Robert and Margaret Klein, in their individual capacities, and Community Grains, LLC.
Judgment may be entered against Margaret Klein in her individual capacity (jointly and severally with Robert Klein and Community Grains, LLC) solely on Plaintiff's claims under Labor Code §§ 2802 (reimbursements) and 226 (wage statements and records penalties) [$2077.53].
Judgment shall be entered Robert Klein, in his individual capacity, and Community Grains, LLC, jointly and severally, for the entire amount of judgment, including all damages, penalties, and prejudgment interest.
Plaintiff will be directed to provide a proposed judgment (JUD-100).
The Court orders Oliveto G.P., Inc.,, Oliveto Partners, Ltd., and Klein Family Trust in Complaint filed by Michael Vinson on 02/26/2026 dismissed without prejudice.