Zokirzoda v. Acri Cafe Inc.
- James Oetken
- 1:18-cv-11630
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Zokirzoda v. Acri Café, Judge Oetken denied the contempt motion without prejudice because plaintiffs did not follow service and damages-reporting rules.
Dessirey Zokirzoda and Marcos Lazu must satisfy the required service procedures and provide the required details about damages and costs before renewing their contempt motion against Acri Café, Inc. and Muhamet Demaj.
What happened
In Dessirey Zokirzoda and Marcos Lazu v. Acri Café, Inc. and Muhamet Demaj, the plaintiffs sought to hold the defendants in contempt for repeatedly failing to comply with court orders entered after a money judgment in the wage-and-hour case.
The plaintiffs served the contempt motion by mail. The court said this did not show compliance with the required procedures for serving an unrepresented corporation and individual. The court also said the plaintiffs’ affidavit did not identify the damages and costs they were seeking from the alleged misconduct, apart from amounts already awarded.
Judge J. Paul Oetken denied the contempt motion without prejudice to renewal. He directed the plaintiffs to serve revised motion papers and a copy of the order on both defendants within 30 days, following the required procedures.
The detailed version
- Zokirzoda v. Acri Cafe Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-11630
- James Oetken
- Feb. 8, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging wage-and-hour violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. On January 22, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment and entered a monetary judgment, prejudgment interest, and fees against Acri Café, Inc. and Muhamet Demaj, jointly and severally.
The plaintiffs later moved to hold both defendants in contempt based on their alleged continuing failure to comply with the court’s post-judgment orders.
Service of the Contempt Motion
The court applied Southern District of New York Local Civil Rule 83.6, which requires personal service of a contempt-motion notice and a copy of the rule when the defendant is not represented by counsel. The plaintiffs served the motion papers by mailing them on May 9, 2022.
Rule 83.6 requires service in the manner provided for serving a summons. Under the applicable New York procedures, service on a corporation by mail requires specified documents and an acknowledgment process. Service on an individual by mail requires delivery of the summons within New York to a suitable person at the individual’s business, dwelling, or usual place of abode. The court found that the plaintiffs’ affirmation of service did not demonstrate compliance with those requirements.
Damages and Costs
The court also held that Local Rule 83.6 requires the supporting affidavit to state in detail any claim for damages caused by the alleged contempt and the available evidence supporting the amount. Such damages may include reasonable attorney’s fees incurred because of the contempt proceedings. The plaintiffs were directed to specify the damages and costs they sought, excluding amounts already awarded in the default judgment.
Disposition
Judge J. Paul Oetken denied the motion for contempt without prejudice to renewal. The plaintiffs were directed, within 30 days of the order, to serve both defendants with the contempt motion papers, including a revised affidavit, in compliance with Local Rule 83.6, and to serve both defendants with a copy of the order. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at ECF Number 38.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.