Oropeza v. Made In Mexico Uptown Corp.

Background

Salomon Oropeza brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law against Made In Mexico Uptown Corp. and Ismael Bourdier. After the defendants were served, neither appeared. The case then remained inactive because Plaintiff’s counsel took no action to prosecute it.

The court issued two orders requiring Plaintiff’s counsel to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The first order also warned that the court might sanction counsel. Counsel responded by promising to promptly file a motion for default judgment and to comply with deadlines and procedural requirements. After counsel again failed to act for more than a month, the court issued a second warning that counsel might personally face sanctions. Counsel later obtained a certificate of default and filed the motion at issue.

Reasons for Denying Default Judgment

A default judgment is a judgment entered against a party that has failed to appear or defend. The court held that the motion was grossly deficient and denied it without prejudice.

The motion did not provide competent evidence needed to calculate damages. In particular, Oropeza’s affidavit did not state his regular pay rate for the period from March 16, 2018, through December 31, 2022, even though that information was necessary to calculate unpaid overtime. The motion papers also gave conflicting accounts of the number of hours Oropeza worked during that period: the memorandum and counsel’s affidavit stated 52 hours per week, while Oropeza’s affidavit stated 48 hours per week. The papers repeatedly referred to a damages chart that counsel had not submitted.

Counsel also requested $7,160 in attorney’s fees and $570 in costs but submitted no supporting documentation. Counsel stated that a complete contemporaneous time and billing file had been submitted as an exhibit, but no such exhibit was included.

Sanctions and Case Status

The court imposed a $500 monetary sanction on Plaintiff’s counsel because of counsel’s repeated neglect of professional obligations. The court cited counsel’s failure to prosecute the case despite two warnings, followed by the filing of a motion that omitted important evidence and cited exhibits that were not submitted. The sanction must be paid to the Clerk of Court by January 21, 2025.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that the motion for default judgment be denied without prejudice and permitted Plaintiff to file a renewed motion by January 13, 2025. The court stated that a failure to file a proper renewed motion by that date would result in dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court did not dismiss the case in this order.