Wen v. Hair Party 24 Hours Inc.

• Decision Date: 17 May 2021
• Docket Number: 15cv10186 (ER) (DF)
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
• Parties: GE CHUN WEN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HAIR PARTY 24 HOURS INC. d/b/a Hair & Spa Party 24 Hours; HAIR 24 HOURS, INC. d/b/a Hair and Spa Party 24 Hours; JIHEE SPROOCH KIM a/k/a Jenny Kim a/k/a Ji Xi Kin, and JIN WOO AHN a/k/a Jinu Sproch, Defendants.

GE CHUN WEN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
HAIR PARTY 24 HOURS INC. d/b/a Hair & Spa Party 24 Hours; HAIR 24 HOURS, INC. d/b/a Hair and Spa Party 24 Hours; JIHEE SPROOCH KIM a/k/a Jenny Kim a/k/a Ji Xi Kin, and JIN WOO AHN a/k/a Jinu Sproch, Defendants.

No. 15cv10186 (ER) (DF)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

May 17, 2021

HONORABLE EDGARDO RAMOS, U.S.D.J.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

DEBRA FREEMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On November 18, 2016, plaintiff Ge Chun Wen (“Plaintiff”), filed an Amended Complaint in this wage-and-hour case (see Amended Complaint, dated Nov. 18, 2016 (“Am. Compl.”) (Dkt. 18 (also filed at Dkt. 68-3))), claiming that his employers, defendants Hair Party 24 Hours, Inc. (d/b/a Hair & Spa Party 24 Hours), Hair 24 Hours, Inc. (d/b/a Hair & Spa Party 24 Hours), Jihee Sproch Kim (a/k/a Jenny Kim, a/k/a Ji Xi Kin), and Jin Woo Ahn (a/k/a Jinu Sproch) (collectively, “Defendants”), were jointly and severally liable to him and others similarly situated for numerous violations of both the Fair Labor Standards Act (the “FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq., and the New York Labor Law (the “NYLL”), §§ 190, et. seq., and 650, et seq., including, inter alia, a purported failure to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation.^[1]

After Defendants failed to move, answer, or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint, this matter was referred to this Court for a damages inquest. During the time in which that reference was pending, this Court issued two Orders seeking supplemental submissions from Plaintiff's counsel because of omissions, obvious errors, and a certain lack of coherence in the papers that Plaintiff had previously filed in support of his request for a default judgment, and on which this Court sought to rely to calculate damages. Then, even after receipt of supplemental inquest submissions, my Chambers reached out to counsel to request further clarification regarding Plaintiff's purported work schedule. Taken as a whole, Plaintiff's various default and inquest submissions - in particular, the two Affidavits submitted by Plaintiff regarding the days and hours that he worked - are confusing, inexplicably inconsistent, and arguably raise credibility issues on their face. Nonetheless, on the complete record as it now stands, this Court concludes that it can determine, with reasonable certainty, a sum of damages that should be assessed against Defendants upon their default - although, as a result of the inconsistencies in Plaintiff's papers, I recommend that the amount awarded be somewhat less than that sought.

For the reasons discussed below, I recommend that Plaintiff be awarded the following: (1) damages for unpaid overtime wages under the NYLL (which would afford Plaintiff greater relief than the FLSA), in the amount of $190, 005.00; (2) liquidated damages with respect to those unpaid wages, in the amount of an additional $190, 005.00; (3) prejudgment interest on the unpaid wages in the amount of $116, 938.97, calculated up to the date of Plaintiff's most recently submitted interest calculations, plus additional prejudgment interest to be calculated by the Clerk of Court from that date to the date of entry of final judgment; (4) statutory damages of $10, 000 for Defendants' failure to adhere to the wage-statement and wage-notice requirements of the NYLL; (5) attorneys' fees in the amount of $13, 594.05 (which, like the unpaid wages, represents a reduction in the amount requested); and (6) litigation costs in the amount of $400.00 (an amount that is also less than that sought).

BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

1. Initial Proceedings Before Judge Ramos

Having apparently paid a filing fee to open this case on December 31, 2015 (see Dkt.), Plaintiff attempted to file his Complaint 10 days later, on January 10, 2016 (see Dkt. 1), but that filing was rejected as improperly made (see id.). One day after that, on January 11, 2016, Plaintiff proceeded to file a new Complaint, which, as noted above (see supra, at n.1), was not identical to the pleading that Plaintiff had initially attempted to file, as it referred to him by different gender pronouns. In any event, Defendants failed to respond to the Complaint, leading Plaintiff to file a request for a Certificate of Default on August 23, 2016. (Dkt. 16.) On October 12, 2016, the Clerk of Court entered a Certificate of Default as to defendants Hair Party 24 Hours Inc., Hair 24 Hours Inc., and as to the individual defendants who had then been named in the action as Jihee Sproch Kim, and “John Doe.” (Dkt. 17.)

On November 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, identifying the “John Doe” defendant as Jin Woo Ahn. (See Am. Compl.) After Defendants failed to respond to the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff filed another request for Certificate of Default on June 7, 2017. (Dkt. 26.) The Clerk of Court entered another Certificate of Default on June 29, 2017. (Dkt. 27.)

On January 3, 2019, Plaintiff then filed a motion for a default judgment as to all Defendants (Dkt. 32), supported by an attorney Declaration (see Declaration of John Troy in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment, dated Nov. 27, 2018 (“11/27/18 Troy Decl.”) (Dkt. 33)), an Affidavit from Plaintiff (see Affidavit of Ge Chun Wen in Support of Default Judgment Motion, sworn to Sept. 6, 2018 (“9/6/18 Wen Aff.”) (Dkt. 33-1)), and a memorandum of law (see Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgement [sic], dated Nov. 27, 2018 (“Pl. Mem.”) (Dkt. 33-2)). On June 27, 2019, Plaintiff additionally filed a motion for attorneys' fees (Dkt. 34), supported by another attorney Declaration (Declaration of John Troy in Support of Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs, dated June 19, 2019 (“6/19/19 Troy Decl.”) (Dkt. 35)), and an additional memorandum of law (see Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs, dated June 27, 2019 (“Pl. Fee Mem.”) (Dkt. 36)).

On September 18, 2019, the Honorable Edgardo Ramos, U.S.D.J., denied both of those motions without prejudice, for lack of compliance with the procedures contained in the Court's Individual Rules of Practice. (See Dkt. 37.) On November 5, 2019, however, after Plaintiff's counsel apparently remedied their procedural error, Judge Ramos issued an Order To Show Cause, directing Defendants to appear before the Court on December 6, 2019, and show cause why a default should not be entered against them. (Dkt. 39.) When Defendants did not appear on that date, Judge Ramos granted Plaintiff's motion for a default judgment, simultaneously referring the matter to this Court for an inquest on damages and attorneys' fees. (Dkt. 45.)

2. Proceedings Before This Court

On January 24, 2020, this Court issued a Scheduling Order, directing any defendants who wished to contest the amounts requested by Plaintiff do so in writing no later than February 24, 2020. (Dkt. 47.) This Court also directed Plaintiff to serve all Defendants with a copy of the Order and to file proof of service no later than January 31, 2020. (Id.) This Court expressly cautioned Defendants that, if they failed to respond to Plaintiff's submissions by February 24, 2020, then this Court would proceed to issue a report and recommendation concerning damages on the basis of Plaintiff's submissions alone, and that it would not hold a hearing on damages. (See id.) Plaintiffs filed proof of service on February 3, 2020 (Dkts. 48, 49, 50, 51), but Defendants submitted no response.

After reviewing Plaintiff's submissions, however, and finding that the “damages spreadsheets” that Plaintiff purported to have filed in support of his damages calculations had not, in fact, been filed, this Court issued a follow-up Order on November 23, 2020, directing Plaintiff to make a “supplemental submission with respect to damages, by filing the referenced spreadsheets on the Docket of this action.” (See Dkt. 52.) In that Order, this Court directed Plaintiff to make his supplemental submission by November 30, 2020, and afforded Defendants until December 18, 2020 to file a response. (Id.) On November 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed supplemental submissions clarifying his damages calculations and attaching additional supporting materials. (See Letter to the Court from John Troy, Esq., dated Sept. 30, 2020 (Dkt. 53); unsworn Affidavit of Accounting [of John Troy], dated Nov. 27, 2020 (“11/27/20 Troy Aff.”) (Dkt. 53-1); Damages Calculation (“Dam. Calc.”) (Dkt. 53-2).) Defendants did not file any response to those supplemental submissions.

Then, upon further review of Plaintiff's submitted materials, including his newly proffered damages spreadsheet, this Court again directed Plaintiff to provide additional information, primarily - as discussed in detail below - to clarify certain discrepancies in the factual allegations made in his submissions. (See Order, dated Jan, 13, 2021 (Dkt. 60), ) After affording Plaintiff an extension of time to provide the information sought, this Court received additional material from Plaintiff on February 11, 2021, ^[2] including a revised damages calculation. (See Declaration of Aaron Schweitzer in Response to Court's Order dated January 13, 2021, dated Feb. 10, 2021 (“2/10/21 Schweitzer Decl.”) (Dkt. 68); Affidavit of Ge Chun Wen in Support of Default Judgment Motion, dated Feb. 5, 2021 (“2/5/21 Wen Aff.”) (Dkt. 68-1); Damages Calculation (“Revised Dam. Calc.”) (Dkt. 68-4).)

Finally, after reviewing the totality of Plaintiff's submissions, including his supplemental submissions, this Court, through Chambers staff, reached out to Plaintiff's counsel to highlight yet another factual issue, and to request still more clarification. On February 24, 2021, Plaintiff's counsel filed yet another Declaration, ostensibly to correct an error in the supplemental submissions that had been made only two weeks earlier. (See Supplemental Declaration of Aaron B. Schweitzer...