Villalta v. JS Barkats, P.L.L.C.

Background

Denisse Villalta sued her former employer, Sunny Barkats, and J.S. Barkats, PLLC. She alleged that during the two days she worked for Barkats in 2014, he subjected her to quid pro quo sexual harassment and a hostile work environment. She asserted gender-discrimination and harassment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and similar municipal-law claims.

After the defendants repeatedly failed to comply with court orders, including an order requiring Barkats to attend a deposition, Villalta moved for default judgment. Magistrate Judge Lehrburger recommended entering default against the defendants and holding a later inquest to determine damages. The defendants objected to that recommendation, arguing that they had participated in discovery and that Barkats should have been allowed to participate in depositions remotely.

Review of the Objections

Judge Abrams declined to consider the defendants’ arguments because they had not raised them before Magistrate Judge Lehrburger, despite having an opportunity to respond to Villalta’s motion and a warning that failing to respond could lead to a default judgment. The court also stated that, even under a more lenient approach, the arguments did not warrant consideration. The defendants gave no reason for failing to raise them earlier, and the issues depended on facts that Magistrate Judge Lehrburger had been supervising during discovery.

The court therefore reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake. It found no clear error in the magistrate judge’s findings or conclusions.

Reasons for the Default Judgment

The court upheld the use of default judgment as a sanction under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16 and 37. Those rules allow severe sanctions, including default judgment, when a party disobeys scheduling or pretrial orders. The court agreed with Magistrate Judge Lehrburger that the defendants’ noncompliance was willful, lasted for an extended period, and continued despite repeated warnings.

The court also agreed that lesser sanctions were unlikely to make the defendants comply. The report described repeated refusals to respond to discovery, disregard of court orders, delays, Barkats’ failure to attend his deposition without a justifiable excuse, an alleged offer to purchase Villalta’s testimony, and threats to defame and shame her online. The court concluded that the defendants’ persistent and bad-faith conduct justified dispositive sanctions. It added that it would reach the same conclusion even under a more searching review.

Disposition

Judge Ronnie Abrams adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and granted Villalta’s motion for default judgment against the defendants. The court referred the matter back to Magistrate Judge Lehrburger for an inquest to determine the amount of damages. The opinion does not state the damages amount.