IB LAW FIRM
`Inna Brady (SBN 3221 18)
`innabrady@iblawrm.com
`4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
`San Franéisco, CA 941 11
`TEL: (415) 237-3938
`FAX: (202) 9988-602
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Alejandro Aguilar
`
`F MA FEE E
`
`SAN MATEQ COUNTY
`:JUL 114 2022
`Clerk‘ at me eipeor Conn
`By mu
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`IN AND FOR SAN MATEO COUNTY
`UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
`
`u
`
`1 1 I
`
`I
`
`1
`
`1
`
`!
`
`Case No: 21-CIV-05481
`PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION
`FOR SEPARATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT
`AGAINST EHEALTHVITALS, INC.
`UNDER CCP § 579
`SUPPORTING DECLARATION OF
`INNA BRADY
`h
`
`'
`
`ALEJANDRO AGUILAR,
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`EHealthVitals, Inc., a Delaware
`corporation; Lalitha Mandalika (aka Vani
`Mandalika, aka Lalitha Vani Mandalika,
`aka Lalitha Vani), and DOES 1—10.
`Defendants.
`
`‘
`
`a w m "'1 Fauna".
`
`1:25- 4.;
`
`v
`
`.5.
`
`_-1
`
`—
`
`11:11:32; Kim-Ln.
`
`..
`
`»
`
`.
`
`,1
`
`~
`
`J- 31’”?
`v 1r.
`1:11: 11» 1‘1 1w
`
`11F"
`
`t
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`{JDATE-WW1)
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1.,
`
`T11
`
`'11113’-Er‘:1
`
`“I
`
`{211“}:
`
`(PI “23’
`
`XVA8311:1
`
`1'5
`
`" "TIME- 2.00 PM PST
`DEPARTMENT 23
`JUDGE: V. RAYMOND SWOPE
`
`i
`
`.
`
`I
`
`311:“1111111111
`
`-1-
`Motion for Separate Judgment Against EHealthVitals, Inc.
`
`V'Q1
`
`

`

`E E ’3E E V E B
`SAN MATEO COUNTY
`”Jwn
`GEerkotmeSupsmGwn
`wmcmx
`
`3V
`
`R E C E 0 V E 13
`SAN MATEO Cm sN'rv
`JUL 1 2 2022
`Clerk or the bupenou Calm
`
`By
`
`DEPUTY CLERK
`
`

`

`NOTICE
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEY’S OF RECORDS:
`NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on October 31, 2022, at 2:00 PM PST 02 as soon
`thereafter as the matter may be heard, in Department 23 of this Court, located at 105G Mission
`Road, South San Francisco, CA 94080, or virtually at the remote hearing link, which canibe found
`at http://Www.sanmateocourt.org/court_divisions/civil/dept23.php, Plaintiff
`Alejandrc: Aguilar
`will, and hereby does move this Court for an entry of separate judgment against «jefendant
`EHealthVitals, Inc. (“EHealth”).
`This motion is based on the groundsthat the default against EHealth has beei entered,
`Plaintiffis entitled to defaultjudgment, and the other defendant, Ms. Lalitha Vani Manda'dka
`for bankruptcy, and the case against her is on stay.
`Mandalika”), has led
`This motion is made pursuant to Cal. code Civ. Proc. § 579 and is based on this notice of
`motion, on the memorandum set forth below, on the Declaration of Inna Brady, attached hereto,
`herein and such evidence as may be presented at the heargmg of the
`and on the records and le
`
`I
`
`i
`
`)n
`
`I
`
`I
`
`I
`
`V
`
`l
`
`a
`
`l
`
`(“Ms.
`
`i
`
`V
`
`motion.
`
`Dated: Ap'ri122,2022
`
`‘4
`
`'
`
`"
`
`'
`
`~
`
`Inna Bra ’37, Esq. (SBN 3221 18)
`Attorneys for
`Alejandro Aguilar
`
`-1-
`Plaintiffs Application for Separate Judgment Against EHealthVitals, Inc.
`
`\O 1
`
`0
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`. 20
`
`_21
`
`'22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`\x» J
`
`z
`
`V
`
`/\
`KV/
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`’ INTRODUCTION
`
`IV.
`
`5
`
`§
`
`This is a straightforward wage theft case. Defendant EHealthVitals, Inc. (“EHealth”) is a
`mere shell of its owners’ inesponsible startup ambitions. EHealth hired Alejandro ‘Aguilar as a
`taking advantage of Mr. Aguilar’s work; it refused to pay
`software engineer and after sufciently
`his wages. Moreover, it willfully misclassied
`him as an independent contractor, failed to pay
`sick leave, failed to provide wage statements, failed to reimburse for work-related expehses, and
`failed to pay the wages.
`Defendant Lalitha Vani Mandalika, EHealth’s owner and HR and nancial directir, clearly
`admitted the owed wages in multiple emails. However, she then blatantly denied her responsibility
`for bankruptcy several days before her discovery production was due.
`and quickly led
`Plaintiff Mr. Aguilar respectilly
`request this court to enter a separate [default judgment
`against EHealth.
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`II.
`Plaintiff Alejandro Aguilar worked at EHealth for three and a half years, from January.
`11, 2016, until July 19, 2019, on a 40 hours a week schedule. See Declaration of Mr. Aguilar
`(“Aguilar Decl.”) 1] 2, Exs. A—B.
`i
`Starting om or around November 2016, EHealth’s owner, nancial
`human
`director, anfd
`resources director Lalitha Vani Mandalika (“Ms. Mandalika”) regularly delayed the payment of
`Mr. Aguilar’s wages and negotiated with him for payment schedules. See Aguilar Decli
`6, Ex.
`C. Mr. Aguilar continuously emailed Ms. Mandalika about the delays and demanded payments.
`Ms. Mandalika asked to wait, delayed more, or simply failed to respond to Mr. Aguilar’js
`demands. See id.
`
`I
`
`r
`
`I
`
`g
`
`‘
`
`I
`
`;
`
`i
`
`On 0r around July 19, 2019, Mr. Aguilar notied Defendants that he
`re51gned from his
`position of software engineer. Id. at 11 7. By then, eHealth owed him $12,050.00In wagesas
`seen in the timesheets, the last paycheck, and the admission emails attached to Aguilar Decl. as
`Exhibits A—E. Even after the resignation, Mr. Aguilar continued demanding his earned wages
`
`-2-
`Plaintiff‘s Application for Separate Judgment Against EHealthVitals, Inc.
`
`g
`
`\D 1
`
`0
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`9/ \
`x;
`‘\
`
`\Y
`
`{V
`\n/
`
`5
`
`I
`
`i
`
`.
`
`from Defendants. He emailed Ms. Mandalika at least 15 times without receiving any recjponse.
`Aguilar Decl. 11 8, Ex. E.
`After two months of futile attempts to receive his wages, on September 23, 20191 Ms.
`Mandalika sent an email stating that she was “exploring the possibilities on resources’to pay the
`owed amount and that she would contact him later. Aguilar Decl. Ex. E. Yet, another unfullled
`
`j
`
`'
`
`|
`
`promise.
`EHealth never provided paid sick leave time or payments, never issued wage statements,
`and never reimbursed Mr. Aguilar for his work-related expenses. Aguilar Decl. um 9-10.! As
`such, Mr. Aguilar is entitled to the relief sought.
`III.
`DISCUSSION
`“In an action against several defendants, the Court may, in its discretion, render judgment
`against one or more of them, leaving the action to proceed against the others, whenever a several
`judgment is proper.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 579.
`Here, a separate judgment against EHealth is warranted because the other defendant, Ms.
`hold. SeeiNotice 3f
`for bankruptcy, putting her case on an indenite
`Mandalika, has led
`Bankruptcy Filing led by Ms. Mandalika on April 13, 2022. The clerk of the court has: already
`entered a default against Defendant EHealth. See Proof of Service and Request’for Entrly of
`on December 30, 2021. Mr. Aguilar1s entitled to the default judgment and
`Default led
`would
`like to proceed against EHealth. Therefore, a separate default judgment against EHealth will
`only advance the interests ofjudicial economy.
`Plaintiff requests this Court to enter default judgment against EHealth in the am-lhunt
`detailed in the Judicial form JUD—lOO, Supporting declarations ofAlej andro Aguilar and;
`Inna
`Brady, and any other evidence as may be presented at the hearing.
`IV.
`CONCLUSION
`Accordingly, Mr. Aguilar respectfully requests this court to enter a separate default
`judgment against EHealth.
`Dated: April 22, 2022
`
`I
`
`i
`
`i
`
`i
`
`I
`
`3
`
`5
`
`I
`
`I 1
`
`-3-
`Plaintiffs Application for Separate Judgment Against EHealthVitals, Inc.
`
`\D 1
`
`0
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`’18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`'22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`' 1/3"
`
`sq. (SBN 3221 18)
`
`Inna Brady,
`Attorneys for
`Alejandro Aguilar
`
`-4—l
`Plaintiff’s Application for Separate Judgment Against EHealthVitals, Inc.
`
`1
`
`IQ
`
`U)
`
`-b
`
`U]
`
`ON
`
`m.
`
`\O 1
`
`0
`
`11
`
`12'
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`>22
`
`23
`
`24
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`4\\V/,
`
`l
`
`I
`
`I
`
`SUPPORTING DECLARATION OF INNA BRADY
`I, INNA BRADY, 'declare as follows:
`I am the attorney of record for PlaintiffAlejandro Aguilar in the present case. I
`1.
`am admitted to practice law in this Court. I am submitting this Declaration in snpport of
`Plaintiffs Application for Separate Judgment against defendant EHealthVitals, Inc. (“EHealth”);
`Ihave personal knowledge about and am readily familiar with the matters stated herein, and if
`called as a witness to testify, I am able and willing to testify about the matters stated bebw.
`Damages & Prejudgm'ent Interest Calculation
`The unpaid wages’ amount is $12,050.00. The last paycheck (dated July3, I2019)
`2.
`day that Mr Aguilar
`of Mr. Aguilar was a payment for “04/04/1 9 — 04/ 1 8/19.” The last ill
`worked at EHealth was July 12, 2019, and he worked an additional two hours on July 15, 2019.
`He resigned on July 19, 2019. The total hours that he worked om April 19 to July 19, 2019 is
`482 hours (12 weeks and 2 hours). 482 hours x 25/hr =
`$1 2,050.00.
`The liquidated damages under Lab. Code § 1194.2 equal the amount of impaid
`3.
`wages, i.e. $12,050.00.
`The accrued and unpaid sick leave amounts to $8,575.00 (1,289 work days from
`4.
`January 2016 to July 19, 2019 x 8 hours a day / 30= 34‘3 hours of sick leave, 343 hours of sick
`leave x $25/hr rate—— $8,575.00) See Cal. Lab. Code § 246(b)(l) (“An employee shall acc'rue
`paid sick days at the rate not less than one hour per every 30 hours worked”).
`Waiting time penalties under Cal. Lab. Code § 203(a) are 30 days x 25/lL rate——
`5.
`$6,000.00 (“If an employer willfully fails to pay, without abatement or reduction, in accordance
`with Sections 201 , 201.3 , 201.5 , 201.9 , 202 , and 205.5 , any wages of an employee who is
`discharged or who quits, the wages of the employee shall continue as a penalty from the due date
`thereof at the same rate until paid or until an action therefor is commenced; buti the wagesshall
`not continue for more than 30 days.”).
`Work related expenses for Mr. Aguilar’ s personal laptop under Cal. Lab. Code §
`6.
`2802(a) are the value of the laptop, approximately $1,800.00. (“An employer shall indemnify his
`
`-5-
`Plaintiff’s Application for Separate Judgment Against EHealthVitals, Inc.
`
`r—x
`
`O
`
`r—t
`r—A
`
`b—t
`
`N
`
`U.)
`r—A
`
`-b
`I--I
`
`U1
`r—l
`
`Ox
`t—l
`
`>—*
`
`00
`P—‘
`
`\D
`
`H
`
`N
`O
`
`
`
`NH
`
`
`
`NN
`
`U3
`
`N
`
`-h
`
`N
`
`>U1
`
`N
`
`O\
`
`N
`
`N
`
`00
`
`N
`
`

`

`'
`
`,
`
`1
`
`-I
`
`\
`
`or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the emplOyee1n direct
`consequence of the discharge of his or her duties,[. . .]”).
`I
`Cal. DabI.
`Penalties for the failure to provide itemized wage statements
`7.
`under
`Code § 226(e) are the maximum of $4,000.00. (“An employee sufferinginjury as a re'su_t o'f a
`with subdivision (a)1s entitled to
`knowing and intentional failure by an employer to
`comply
`recover the greater of all actual damages or fty
`dollars ($50) for the initial pay period1e which
`a violation occurs and one hundred dollars ($100) per employee for each Violation in a
`1 subsequent pay period, not to exceed an aggregate penalty of four thousand
`is entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorney‘s fees”).-
`The total amount of the above items is $44,475.00.
`8.
`The prejudgment interest rate of 10% from the date of nonpaymeht (July22;
`9.
`2019) for 1,192 days (until October 24, 2022) is $44,475.00 x 10% / 365x 1,192 days
`$14,524.44.
`
`and
`
`dollarsi($4,CI00l),
`
`‘i
`
`—I
`
`i
`
`Declaration of Nonmilitarv Status of Defendant
`Defendant EHealth1s not in the military service as the term is dened
`10.
`byjeit-her
`the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U. S.C. App. § 391 1(2), or California Military and
`Veterans Code § 400(b).
`-I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 1
`foregoingis true and correct. Executed on this 22nd day of April, 2022, in McL,ean
`
`'.
`
`Virginia.
`
`i
`
`Inna Brady, Esq. (SBN 3221 18)
`
`-6-
`Plaintiff’s Application for Separate Judgment Against EHealthVitals, Inc.
`
`O 1
`
`0‘
`
`11
`
`12V
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`'
`
`16
`‘17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`"28‘
`
`