Wen v. Hair Party 24 Hours Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:15-cv-10186
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Wen v. Hair Party 24 Hours, Judge Freeman, set procedures for defendants to contest damages, fees, and costs after default.
Ge Chun Wen and the defendants Hair Party 24 Hours Inc., Hair 24 Hours, Inc., Jihee Sproch Kim, and Jin Woo Ahn. The order also required the corporate defendants to use counsel while allowing the individual defendants to respond without counsel.
What happened
In Wen v. Hair Party 24 Hours Inc., the court addressed the next steps after the defendants’ default in a wage-and-hour case involving Ge Chun Wen. The court stated that the complaint’s well-pleaded allegations established liability on the claims.
The order gave the defendants until February 24, 2020, to respond to Wen’s requested damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs. The two corporate defendants had to respond through a lawyer, while the two individual defendants could respond without lawyers.
Judge Freeman ordered Wen to serve the order and proof of service. If the defendants did not respond or request a hearing by the deadline, the court would prepare a recommendation about damages based only on Wen’s written submissions and would not hold a damages hearing unless one was requested in writing.
The detailed version
- Wen v. Hair Party 24 Hours Inc. · No. 1:15-cv-10186
- Edgardo Ramos
- Jan. 24, 2020
Background
This wage-and-hour case was brought by Ge Chun Wen on behalf of herself and others similarly situated against Hair Party 24 Hours Inc., Hair 24 Hours, Inc., Jihee Sproch Kim, and Jin Woo Ahn. The opinion states that the defendants had defaulted. On October 29, 2018, Edgardo Ramos referred the case to this court for an inquest—a process for determining the amount of money that should be awarded after liability has been established.
Wen had filed a motion for default judgment and supporting counsel affidavit seeking damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs. The docket showed that Wen served the motion papers on the defendants. The court stated that the complaint’s well-pleaded allegations established the defendants’ liability on the claims, but that the defendants were still entitled to contest the amounts sought.
Order
The court ordered that any defendant wishing to challenge Wen’s damages calculations or fee application had to submit a response by February 24, 2020. Hair Party and Hair 24, as corporations, could appear in the court only through an attorney. Any response or request for a damages hearing from those entities therefore had to be filed through counsel.
Kim and Ahn were permitted to proceed without counsel in connection with the damages inquest. If they did so, they were directed to send or deliver their responses to the court’s Pro Se Office.
If the defendants failed to respond by February 24, the court stated that it would issue a report and recommendation about damages based only on Wen’s written submissions. The court also stated that it would not hold a damages hearing unless a defendant requested one in writing by that date. Wen was directed to serve a copy of the order on the defendants and file proof of service by January 31, 2020.
Disposition and effect
This was a scheduling order for the damages inquest. It did not state the amount of damages, interest, fees, or costs to be awarded, and it did not state that the court had entered a final damages judgment. The order set the procedures and deadlines for addressing those amounts after the defendants’ default.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.