Acharya v. 7-Eleven, Inc.

Background

Devendra Raj Acharya brought claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, alleging that he was denied overtime compensation while employed at 7-Eleven convenience stores operated by Jimmy K. Solanki. 7-Eleven, Inc. was dismissed from the case in a prior order, and Solanki was the only remaining defendant.

After discovery resumed in 2020, Acharya moved to compel discovery, asserting that Solanki had not provided documents or substantive discovery responses. On August 17, 2020, the court ordered Solanki to produce nearly all the requested information. Solanki’s lawyer later withdrew, and the court allowed Solanki to proceed without a lawyer while requiring his former counsel to inform him of deadlines and litigation obligations.

Solanki did not appear at a September 23, 2020 status conference, did not respond to the court’s order requiring an explanation, and did not provide discovery or communicate with the court or Acharya’s counsel. The court previously declined to impose sanctions but ordered Solanki to comply with the discovery order and arrange his deposition. It warned that continued noncompliance could result in sanctions, including striking his answer.

Renewed sanctions motion

Acharya renewed his motion for sanctions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16 and 37. He requested that the court establish facts in his favor, bar Solanki from opposing the claims or presenting supporting evidence, and strike Solanki’s answer. Solanki did not appear at the November 13, 2020 status conference or otherwise contest the renewed motion.

Court’s reasoning

The court considered Solanki’s repeated failures, the length of the noncompliance, whether the failures were willful, whether lesser sanctions would work, and whether Solanki had been warned about the consequences. The court found that Solanki had received multiple opportunities and warnings, including a specific warning that his answer could be stricken. It concluded that he had willfully disregarded his obligations and that lesser sanctions were unlikely to produce compliance.

Disposition

Judge Vyskocil granted in part Acharya’s motion for sanctions and struck Jimmy K. Solanki’s answer. The court did not enter a default judgment at that time. It stated that Acharya could seek a certificate of default and file a motion for default judgment, which would give Solanki another opportunity to appear or contest that later motion.