Kansupda v. Baptista Delivery Services, LLC

Background

Amit Kansupda filed a second motion for default judgment against Baptista Delivery Services, LLC and Baptista Enterprises Transporting and Towing, LLC. The court had denied his first motion because he had not correctly alleged his employment dates. The second motion relied on an operative complaint, a declaration, and damages calculations that stated different employment periods. The complaint alleged employment from approximately November 2016 to February 2017 and from March 2017 to approximately April 21, 2017. The declaration stated employment from April 15, 2016 to January 23, 2017 and from March 14, 2017 until April 21, 2017. The damages calculations were based on employment beginning August 15, 2016.

Problems with the Claims

The court explained that, when deciding a default-judgment motion, it accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true but does not treat legal conclusions or unsupported allegations as admitted.

The court found that Kansupda supplied almost no factual allegations supporting his claim that the defendants misclassified him. For example, he alleged that the defendants controlled his work but did not explain how they exercised that control. The complaint mentioned instructions about work schedules, approval of changes, truck fuel levels, and accident reporting, but did not explain how those instructions applied to his work or how they showed the required control.

The court also found that Kansupda had not provided enough facts to support an overtime claim. His allegation that he frequently worked more than eight hours per day and 40 hours per week without overtime pay did not identify enough detail about a specific workweek, the amount of unpaid work, or how often it occurred. The court further found it unclear whether the allegations showed that both defendants were joint operators and therefore both liable for damages.

Problems with Damages

The court found that the damages calculations also lacked adequate support. Kansupda’s penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act for inaccurate wage statements and unreimbursed expenses assumed that the defendants paid employees about once a week and employed five people. The court found no support for the estimate that the defendants employed five people during the relevant period. Working with four other drivers did not establish that the defendants continued to employ five people after Kansupda stopped working for them.

Disposition

The court found the motion for default judgment defective. It gave Kansupda the option to voluntarily withdraw the motion and file a second amended complaint within 21 days of the order. Any amended complaint and renewed motion for default judgment had to address the problems identified by the court. If Kansupda did not withdraw the motion, the court would reassign the case to a district judge with a recommendation that the motion for default judgment be denied for the stated reasons. The order itself did not grant or deny the motion for default judgment.

Judge

The order was signed by Kandis A. Westmore, United States Magistrate Judge.