Nana v. LE Viking LLC

Background

Idrice Nana sued Le Viking LLC doing business as Bistro Chez Lucienne, Malcolm 308 LLC, Thierry Guizzone, and Fara Fall. Nana sought unpaid wages, overtime compensation, and relief for retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law, and the New York Labor Law.

Nana alleged that he worked as a server and bartender at the defendants’ restaurant and was not paid all required wages and overtime. Fall was served with the original complaint and later the amended complaint. He eventually filed an answer without a lawyer, generally denying the allegations and specifically denying that he owned the restaurant.

Fall did not attend two scheduled conferences. The court warned him that failing to attend could result in a judgment without a trial. Fall also did not respond to Nana’s motion for summary judgment. On March 2, 2018, the court granted summary judgment against Fall but denied Nana’s separate motion for sanctions. The court found that undisputed evidence showed Fall exercised enough control over Nana and his workplace to qualify as Nana’s employer under the federal and New York wage laws, while specifically declining to find that Fall owned the restaurant.

Fall did not appear at the later damages hearing. A magistrate judge recommended assessing $99,667 in damages against all defendants, and the court adopted that recommendation and entered judgment on October 29, 2019. In February 2020, Fall moved to vacate the judgment. Guizzone also filed a motion but later withdrew it, so this order addressed only Fall’s motion.

Fall’s arguments

Fall argued that the judgment was a default judgment that should be set aside for “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c). He also relied on Rule 60(b)(3), which allows relief from a judgment for fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct.

Fall said he did not understand the court process and argued that he could not be liable because he was not the restaurant’s owner. He also claimed that much of the information Nana presented to the court was knowingly false and described himself as merely a neighbor.

Court’s analysis

The court first explained that Fall’s judgment was not technically a default judgment. Fall had appeared by filing an answer. The court had instead granted summary judgment after reviewing Nana’s evidence and determining that no material fact was disputed. Fall’s failure to appear at the damages hearing led the court to rely on undisputed evidence in assessing damages.

The court nevertheless considered the three factors used to decide whether a default judgment should be vacated for good cause: whether the failure was willful, whether vacating the judgment would prejudice the opposing party, and whether the defendant presented a potentially complete defense.

The court found that Fall’s failure to respond to the summary-judgment motion and attend the damages hearing was willful. Fall knew about the lawsuit, had filed an answer, and had received a written warning that failing to attend the next conference could lead to judgment without a trial.

The court also found that vacating the judgment would prejudice Nana. Nana and his lawyer had spent substantial time and money litigating the case, including attending court proceedings, preparing the summary-judgment motion, and conducting the damages hearing. The case had been pending for three years.

The court found that Fall had not presented a meritorious defense. The prior summary-judgment ruling did not depend on Fall’s ownership of the restaurant. Instead, it found that Fall was Nana’s employer under the economic-reality test because of Fall’s control over Nana and his workplace. Fall’s statements that he did not own or have an interest in the restaurant therefore did not defeat the basis of the judgment.

The court separately rejected Fall’s request for relief based on alleged fraud or misconduct under Rule 60(b)(3). To obtain that relief, Fall had to show that Nana’s conduct prevented him from fully and fairly presenting his case, using clear and convincing evidence. The court found that nothing Nana said or did prevented Fall from presenting his case because Fall chose not to do so. It also found no evidence that Nana committed fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct.

Disposition

Chief Judge Colleen McMahon denied Defendant Fara Fall’s motion to vacate the judgment. The order did not alter the prior judgment against Fall.