Robles Nava v. Opai Thai Inc.

Background

Isael Robles Nava brought this Fair Labor Standards Act case on May 18, 2020, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against Opai Thai Inc. doing business as Opai Thai, Opai Inc. doing business as Opai Thai, Yan Bing Chen, Tina Doe, and Noe Carretero. After certificates of default were issued for the defendants, Robles Nava moved for default judgment against all five defendants.

Events Before the Hearing

The court scheduled a hearing on the default-judgment motion. Before that hearing, Ren Rong Pan appeared as counsel for Yan Bing Chen and filed a notice of voluntary dismissal that Robles Nava had personally signed and had notarized. The notice stated that it dismissed all claims, causes of action, and parties, with prejudice. Robles Nava’s counsel then asked the court to examine the circumstances surrounding the notice.

Chen stated that Robles Nava signed the notice in July in exchange for $4,500. Chen later reported that she gave Robles Nava an additional $10,000. At the evidentiary hearing, Chen testified that Robles Nava deposited the cash into his bank account and then wrote checks to Michael Faillace in Chen’s presence, with each of them keeping one check. The court found Chen particularly credible, and her testimony was unrebutted because Robles Nava did not appear. The court also found that Michael Faillace’s answers were sometimes imprecise, vague, and inconsistent, although he did not provide information about the notice or the exchange of money.

Rulings

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied Robles Nava’s motion for default judgment. The court held that Robles Nava’s signing of the notice of voluntary dismissal after receiving a monetary payment, together with the history of the case, made entry of default judgment inappropriate. The court did not enter default judgment and did not decide the underlying Fair Labor Standards Act claims.

The court granted Daniel Tannenbaum’s motion to withdraw as counsel. It ordered him to remain available to the Southern District of New York for further inquiries and to update his contact information if it changed.

The court ordered Robles Nava to show cause, in affidavit form, why he should not be held in contempt for violating orders requiring him to appear at the hearing. It also ordered his counsel to describe efforts to contact him and the involvement of employees of Michael Faillace & Associates, P.C. The court separately ordered Robles Nava to explain why the case should not be dismissed because he signed the notice of voluntary dismissal and accepted payment from Chen.

The court scheduled a further videoconference hearing for February 22, 2021, warned that Robles Nava’s failure to appear could result in contempt and might result in dismissal for failure to prosecute, referred the matter to the Southern District of New York Committee on Grievances, and directed the Clerk to close specified docket entries.