Orellana Izaguirre v. Prosper Builders, Inc.

Background

Oscar Rene Orellana Izaguirre sued Prosper Builders, Inc., Quoc K. Truong, and Thai Truong, alleging violations of federal and California wage-and-hour laws. He alleged that he worked as a driver and general laborer from approximately July 15, 2022, through September 15, 2022, generally working 10 hours per day, seven days per week. The defendants did not respond to the complaint or appear, and the clerk entered default against all three defendants.

The court had previously denied the plaintiff’s first motion for default judgment without prejudice because he had not addressed the required factors for default judgment and had not provided enough information about service, personal jurisdiction, and venue. The plaintiff filed a renewed motion. Because only the plaintiff had consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction, the court directed the clerk to reassign the case to a district judge and issued this report and recommendation.

Service, jurisdiction, and liability

The court found that Prosper Builders had been served through the California Secretary of State as authorized by the court. It also found that Quoc K. Truong and Thai Truong had been properly served by leaving the summons and complaint with Thuy Truong, identified as a sister and occupant, at the individual defendants’ home address and mailing copies there. The court further found that the plaintiff had adequately addressed personal jurisdiction and venue.

Applying the factors used to decide whether to enter default judgment, the court concluded that most favored entering judgment. It found the allegations sufficient to establish that Prosper Builders and the two individual defendants could be liable as employers under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law. It also found the allegations sufficient to establish potential liability under California Labor Code section 558.1 for covered wage-and-hour violations.

Damages

The plaintiff sought, among other amounts, $42,136.50 in unpaid overtime and related damages and $4,669.50 in attorney fees and costs. The court required additional information because the record was unclear about how much the defendants had paid. The plaintiff’s attorney submitted a supplemental statement listing 591 total hours and $10,180 in wages paid, but the statement was not signed by the plaintiff and was not made under penalty of perjury.

For the alleged minimum-wage and overtime violations, the court calculated that a 70-hour workweek required $560 for 40 regular hours and $630 for 30 overtime hours, for a total of $1,190. Because the plaintiff was listed as having received $1,200 for each such week, and more than the minimum wage for weeks in which he worked fewer hours, the court found that the evidence did not establish unpaid minimum or overtime wages. It therefore recommended denying those damages and denying related Fair Labor Standards Act liquidated damages.

For rest breaks, the court accepted the supplemental statement that the plaintiff worked 10 or more hours on 58.5 days and received no rest breaks. It recommended awarding $819, calculated at $14 per day. Because the submission did not address whether meal breaks were provided, it recommended no award for unpaid meal breaks.

The court also recommended $420 in California waiting-time penalties for 30 days following the end of the plaintiff’s employment, based on the missed-rest-break premium pay. For wage-statement violations, the court recommended $950: $50 for the first pay period and $100 for each of the nine subsequent pay periods.

Attorney fees, costs, and recommended disposition

The court recommended that judgment be entered for the plaintiff against the defendants, jointly and severally, for $819 in rest-break damages, $420 in waiting-time penalties, and $950 in wage-statement damages. It recommended that attorney fees and costs be considered only after further briefing and evidence about the plaintiff’s eligibility and the amount claimed.

The court recommended granting the renewed motion for default judgment in part and denying the plaintiff’s claims for unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, and liquidated damages. Any party could object to the report and recommendation within 14 days after being served. The text does not state that a district judge had adopted the recommendation.