Florez v. Yim CA2/3

Filed 4/2/15 Florez v. Yim CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

HERMINA FLOREZ et al., B255766

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC471407) v.

DONG YIM et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,

William F. Fahey, Judge. Reversed.

Lipow & Harris and Jeffrey A. Lipow for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Law Offices of Alex Cha and Alex M. Cha for Defendants and Respondents.

_______________________________________

Appellants Hermina Florez and Claudia Zaragoza appeal from the trial court’s order reducing a judgment in their favor. Appellants sued the owners of a laundromat for wage and hour violations and wrongful termination. At a mandatory settlement conference, appellants and respondents agreed on a settlement amount -- $175,000 -- and a payment schedule. The settlement agreement provided that, if respondents did not pay the agreed-upon settlement amount, appellants could enter a stipulated judgment for $300,000. Respondents paid $58,000 of the $175,000 but then defaulted on the final balloon payment of $117,000, and appellants had the court enter the stipulated judgment. The court later reduced the amount of the judgment, finding that the additional $125,000 was an impermissible penalty under Civil Code section 1671, subdivision (b) and applicable law. We reverse because the Civil Code presumes a liquidated damages provision to be valid and places the burden of proving it invalid on the party challenging the liquidated damages. Respondents here made no showing at all. Thus, they failed to carry their burden of proof. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs and appellants Hermina Florez and Claudia Zaragoza, a mother and daughter, worked for several years at a laundromat in Wilmington owned by defendants and respondents Dong Yim, Stan Chu, and SCGY Investment Inc., doing business as Y&C Coin Laundry (collectively SCGY). Florez says she worked fifteen hours a day -- from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. -- seven days a week. Zaragoza says she worked nine hours a day -- from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. -- seven days a week. SCGY paid appellants $2,000 each month in cash, to be divided between them. Wages of one thousand dollars a month for those hours worked amounts to less than $2.25 an hour for Florez and about $3.70 an hour for Zaragoza.1