DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25STCV33358·la·Civil·Labor Code Violations
Hearing in about 3 hoursDENIED without prejudice. The Court hereby vacates the default of Defendant Villanoink LLC.

Ayse Cetinkaya v. Villanoink LLC

Request for Default Judgment

Hearing date
Sep 11, 2026
Department
510
Judge
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Monetary amounts referenced

$120,000$45,000$75,000$25,671.76$2,890

Parties

PlaintiffAyse Cetinkaya
DefendantVillanoink LLC

Ruling

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 510) September 11, 2026 DEPARTMENT 510 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS Please notify Department 510 via email at SMCDEPT510@lacourt.ca.gov and indicate that the parties are submitting on the tentative ruling. Please provide the attorney's name and represented party. Please notify the opposing side via email if submitting on the Court's tentative ruling.

Villanoink LLC Plaintiff Ayse Cetinkaya's Request for Default Judgment Plaintiff Ayse Cetinkaya requests court judgment by default against Defendant Villanoink LLC. Plaintiff's application for default has several defects.

Excessive Damages Plaintiff requests default judgment for damages of $120,000; this includes $45,000 in compensatory damages for loss of earnings and $75,000 for pain and suffering/emotional distress damages. This improperly exceeds the amount demanded in the complaint. "A default judgment greater than the amount specifically demanded in the complaint is void as beyond the court's jurisdiction." (Airs Aromatics, LLC v. CBL Data Recovery Technologies, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 1013, 1018 (Airs Aromatics).) "Where no amount of damages is demanded any amount awarded is by definition greater than the amount demanded." (Falahati v.

Kondo (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 823, 830-831.) The complaint's prayer for relief does not specify any amount of damages. (See Compl., prayer, at p. 19.) Plaintiff's service of a statement of damages in Defendant does not cure this defect. "[A] statement of damages does not satisfy section 580 if the case does not involve personal injury or wrongful death." (Airs Aromatics, supra, 23 Cal.App.5th at p. 1013.) This is not a personal injury case.

To recover the damages Plaintiff requests, she must amend the complaint to specifically demand that amount. Doing so would vacate Defendant's default. After a plaintiff "file[s] an amended complaint praying for a different amount of damages and/or other appropriate relief... she must serve her amended complaint on defendants, who will be entitled to file a new answer; all issues will then be at large, including liability." (Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 830; accord Airs Aromatics, supra, 23 Cal.App.5th at p. 1025 [filing amended complaint vacates default].) Any amended complaint must be served in the manner of a summons. (Engebretson & Co. v. Harrison (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 436, 444.)

Amount of Damages Plaintiff presents insufficient evidence showing she suffered $75,000 in emotional distress/pain and suffering damages. It is also unclear why $45,000 was chosen as an amount to compensate Plaintiff for lost wages. There are no authenticated exhibits showing Plaintiff's wage statements or declarations attesting to how she suffered this specific amount in lost wages.

Excessive Attorney Fees Plaintiff seeks excessive attorney fees. Attorney fees for a default judgment are generally limited to a specified schedule based on the amount of damages. (Local Rules 3.207(a), 3.214(a).) A plaintiff may recover "a fee greater than listed in the [default] schedule because of extraordinary services." (Rule 3.214(d).) Plaintiff's proposed judgment includes a request for $25,671.76 in attorney fees. That is far greater than the schedule, which provides for attorney fees of "$2,890 plus 1% of the excess over $100,000" for judgments over $100,000. (Rule 3.214(a).) Plaintiff does not show extraordinary services justifying a greater fee.

Pre-Judgment Interest Plaintiff requests prejudgment interest at the annual rate of 10%, but did not include interest computations to support her request. Plaintiff must provide "[i]nterest computations as necessary." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a)(3).) Such computations require identifying the principal amount, beginning date, end date, and interest rate. In addition, it is not clear to the Court how violations of the Labor Code would justify a 10% prejudgment interest rate. This 10% prejudgment interest rate is only available for claims based on breach of contract. All other claims are entitled to a 7% interest rate. (See Civil Code Sec. 3287; Cal. Const. Art. 15 Sec. 1.)

Disposition

Plaintiff's request for default judgment is denied without prejudice. The Court hereby vacates the default of Defendant Villanoink LLC. | Home -->)" -->

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share