Giron v. Auto Perfection Group Inc.

Background

Mario Giron brought this Fair Labor Standards Act case against Auto Perfection Group Inc. and Daniel Maya. On January 6, 2020, Giron’s counsel, Abdul K. Hassan, filed a motion seeking approval of a settlement. On January 13, 2020, the court denied that motion without prejudice and ordered counsel to either explain the basis for personal jurisdiction over the defendants or file a notice of voluntary dismissal if Giron conceded that the court lacked personal jurisdiction.

Court’s concerns

Counsel filed a notice of voluntary discontinuance without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), along with a letter that did not assert a basis for personal jurisdiction. The court rejected counsel’s characterization of its earlier order, explaining that it had not held that a court could never exercise personal jurisdiction over a corporation located in New Jersey.

The court also addressed counsel’s assertions about a purported answer by Daniel Maya. It stated that the docket’s listing of Maya as representing himself did not bind the court, and that the markings on the document did not show that the Pro Se Office had received it. The court further stated that, even if the document had been properly filed, Maya, as a non-attorney, could not represent Auto Perfection Group Inc. The court also noted that the person counsel identified as defense counsel had never filed anything or appeared in the case.

The court criticized counsel’s reliance on unsworn assertions without supporting proof, including quotations from supposed settlement emails that counsel had not provided. The court also noted conflicting statements about service on Maya and the absence of proof that Maya had received the summons and complaint. Because the defendants had not appeared, the court had previously indicated that Giron would need to seek default judgment for the case to proceed. Before granting default judgment, a court may first ensure that it has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The court found that counsel had not resolved the discrepancies or established a basis for personal jurisdiction.

Disposition

Despite these concerns, the court accepted Giron’s notice of voluntary discontinuance without prejudice because Giron was seeking that relief and no outstanding issues required resolution. The Clerk was directed to close the case. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti therefore ended the action by accepting the voluntary discontinuance; the order did not decide the underlying wage-and-hour claims.