Wen v. Hair Party 24 Hours Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:15-cv-10186
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Wen v. Hair Party 24 Hours Inc., Judge Freeman ordered clearer damages calculations before recommending damages after defendants’ default.
Ge Chun Wen must clarify and supplement her damages calculations. The defaulting defendants—Hair Party 24 Hours Inc., Hair 24 Hours, Inc., Jihee Sprooch Kim, and Jin Woo Ahn—were given an opportunity to respond, subject to the stated representation and filing requirements.
What happened
Wen v. Hair Party 24 Hours Inc. concerns the amount of money Ge Chun Wen seeks after the defendants failed to respond in the case. The court reviewed Wen’s submissions about her work hours, pay, and requested damages.
The court found the submissions confusing and internally inconsistent. It questioned Wen’s descriptions of her Saturday and Sunday schedules, her calculation of weekly hours, and her claims for minimum-wage and spread-of-hours pay under New York law.
Judge Freeman ordered Wen to file a supplemental damages submission by January 27, 2021, clarifying and revising those calculations. The defendants could respond by February 12, 2021; if they did not, the court said it would recommend damages based only on Wen’s written submissions.
The detailed version
- Wen v. Hair Party 24 Hours Inc. · No. 1:15-cv-10186
- Edgardo Ramos
- Jan. 13, 2021
Background
Ge Chun Wen brought this case on behalf of herself and others similarly situated against Hair Party 24 Hours Inc., Hair 24 Hours, Inc., Jihee Sprooch Kim, and Jin Woo Ahn. The matter was referred by Judge Edgardo Ramos for an inquest—a proceeding to determine damages—after the defendants defaulted. Wen submitted materials seeking damages, including a damages-calculation spreadsheet that the court had requested.
Problems with the damages submission
The court declined to recommend damages based on the existing materials because it found them confusing and internally inconsistent. It directed Wen to clarify her work schedules, including conflicting descriptions of her Saturday and Sunday hours during different periods.
The court also found that Wen’s calculation of weekly hours from November 1, 2015, through February 5, 2016, was unexplained. Her submissions described a schedule that, depending on which day was taken off, appeared to produce between 76 and 80 hours per week, but stated that she worked 72 hours per week.
The court further directed Wen to clarify whether she was claiming minimum-wage damages and spread-of-hours pay under New York law. The court noted that, if Wen’s weekly pay covered only her first 40 hours, her stated hours appeared to produce a base hourly rate above the applicable minimum wage. It also noted that decisions in the district had held that spread-of-hours pay was unavailable without a minimum-wage violation, and directed Wen to provide legal support if she continued to seek either type of payment.
Order
Judge Freeman ordered Wen to file a supplemental damages submission by January 27, 2021, and to serve the order on the defendants and file proof of service. The defendants could respond by February 12, 2021. The corporate defendants could respond only through counsel, while Kim and Ahn could respond without counsel using the court’s filing procedures.
The court stated that if the defendants did not respond by February 12, it would issue a report and recommendation concerning damages based on Wen’s written submissions alone. It also stated that it would not hold a damages hearing unless a defendant requested one in writing by that date. This order did not determine the amount of damages.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.