Timmins v. Zheng CA4/3
G058705
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 22, 2021Background
- Timmins sued Xiao Zheng, Juan Cheng, and Shedoor International, Inc. for wage-and-hour violations (overtime, meal/rest breaks, unpaid business expenses) and alleged voidable transfers; sought at least $150,000.
- Defaults were entered against Zheng (12/27/2017), Cheng and Shedoor, Inc. (1/4/2018); motions to set aside defaults were filed after the six-month window under CCP § 473 and denied.
- After a default prove-up, the trial court entered default judgments (10/28/2019) totaling $75,871 against the appellants for unpaid wages, breaks, expenses, costs, and fees.
- The complaint alleged Cheng only in connection with a zero‑consideration transfer of real property (joint-tenancy conveyance) and did not plead any damages attributable to her.
- Appellants pointed to alleged counsel agreement to withdraw defaults and to calculation errors in Timmins’ damages chart (mathematical inconsistencies in overtime calculations).
- The Court of Appeal affirmed denial of the set-aside motions, reversed the default judgment as to Cheng for lack of any alleged damages against her, and vacated and remanded the judgments against Zheng and Shedoor, Inc. for re‑review/recalculation of damages.
Issues
| Issue | Timmins' Argument | Appellants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defaults should be set aside despite being filed past § 473 six‑month limit | Defaults should stand; no proof of settlement agreement or extrinsic fraud | Counsel agreed to withdraw defaults and consolidate; improper service (Cheng, Shedoor) and equitable grounds warrant set‑aside | Denial affirmed — no evidence of extrinsic fraud/mistake, no satisfactory excuse or reasonable diligence shown |
| Whether the complaint failed to state a cause of action as to Cheng | Complaint adequately alleged voidable transfer against Cheng | Cheng not alleged to be employer; no damages alleged against her | Default judgment against Cheng reversed — no damages pleaded as to her |
| Whether the default judgments exceeded amounts alleged and were supported by evidence | Complaint alleged damages ("no less than $150,000"); prove‑up supports judgment | Appellants argued judgment amounts were unsupported and contained calculation errors | Judgment amounts for Zheng and Shedoor vacated and remanded for re‑review/recalculation; complaint’s damage pleading was sufficient for Zheng and Shedoor |
Key Cases Cited
- Rappleyea v. Campbell, 8 Cal.4th 975 (Cal. 1994) (standard of review and limits for equitable set‑aside relief after § 473 window)
- Gale v. Witt, 31 Cal.2d 362 (Cal. 1948) (extrinsic fraud prevents plaintiff from having day in court)
- Kramer v. Traditional Escrow, Inc., 56 Cal.App.5th 13 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (equitable grounds for setting aside defaults are narrower than § 473 grounds)
- In re Marriage of Stevenot, 154 Cal.App.3d 1051 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) (public policy favors finality beyond § 473 period; relief only in exceptional circumstances)
- Airs Aromatics, LLC v. CBL Data Recovery Technologies, Inc., 23 Cal.App.5th 1013 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (default judgment cannot exceed damages alleged in complaint)
- Becker v. S.P.V. Construction Co., 27 Cal.3d 489 (Cal. 1980) (sufficiency of damage allegations and procedure for recalculation on remand)
- Electronic Funds Solutions, LLC v. Murphy, 134 Cal.App.4th 1161 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (court may remand default judgments for recalculation rather than reversal for minor errors)
- Greenup v. Rodman, 42 Cal.3d 822 (Cal. 1986) (purpose of pleading a damage amount is to inform defendant of stakes and litigation worth)