Wen v. Hair Party 24 Hours Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:15-cv-10186
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Wen v. Hair Party 24 Hours Inc., Judge Freeman ordered more damages spreadsheets before deciding damages after defendants’ default.
The order directly affected Ge Chun Wen and defendants Hair Party 24 Hours Inc., Hair 24 Hours, Inc., Jihee Sproch Kim, and Jin Woo Ahn by setting filing, service, response, and hearing-request deadlines concerning damages. The corporate defendants were required to respond through counsel, while the individual defendants could respond without counsel.
What happened
In Wen v. Hair Party 24 Hours Inc., the defendants had defaulted in a wage-and-hour case. The court was reviewing Wen’s submissions to determine damages and attorney’s fees.
The court said Wen had referred to damages spreadsheets but had not filed them. It ordered Wen to file the spreadsheets and proof of service by November 30, 2020. The defendants could respond by December 18, 2020; the corporate defendants had to respond through a lawyer, while the individual defendants could respond without one.
Judge Freeman said that if the defendants did not respond, the court would prepare a recommendation about damages based only on Wen’s written submissions. The order did not decide the amount of damages or attorney’s fees.
The detailed version
- Wen v. Hair Party 24 Hours Inc. · No. 1:15-cv-10186
- Edgardo Ramos
- Nov. 23, 2020
Background
The case is a wage-and-hour action brought by Ge Chun Wen against Hair Party 24 Hours Inc., Hair 24 Hours, Inc., Jihee Sproch Kim, and Jin Woo Ahn. The court had previously entered a default-related posture and issued a scheduling order for an inquest into damages. A damages inquest is a process for determining the amount owed after a defendant has failed to defend the case. The defendants had been given until February 24, 2020, to contest the amount of damages and attorney’s fees sought by Wen, but they had not filed a response.
Missing Damages Materials
In reviewing Wen’s submissions, the court found that Wen’s lawyer had stated that damages-calculation spreadsheets were attached, but the court could not find those spreadsheets in the filing. The order therefore required Wen to file the spreadsheets as a supplemental damages submission by November 30, 2020, and to file proof that the supplemental submission and the order had been served on the defendants.
Defendants’ Responses
The defendants could respond to the supplemental submission by December 18, 2020. Hair Party and Hair 24, as corporations, could appear in the case only through an attorney. Kim and Ahn could submit responses without lawyers through the court’s procedures for people representing themselves. The order also explained temporary filing methods during the COVID-19 outbreak.
Ruling and Effect
Judge Debra Freeman ordered the supplemental filing and set deadlines for any responses. If no defendant responded by December 18, the court would proceed to 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. This order did not set the amount of damages or attorney’s fees.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.