Singh v. Meadow Hill Mobile, Inc.

Background

Kulwinder Singh and Bikramjit Singh brought federal and New York wage-and-hour claims against Meadow Hill Mobile Inc. d/b/a Meadow Hill Mobil Mart, Hazim Abujaber, and Ahmad Ghadeer, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The defendants did not respond to the complaint or to the court’s order asking why judgment should not be entered against them. The court therefore entered judgment against the defendants on liability and later adopted a damages recommendation awarding money to both plaintiffs, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

The court later granted the plaintiffs’ request to correct typographical errors in the defendants’ names and entered an amended judgment on December 7, 2021. More than eight months later, counsel appeared for the defendants and filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to vacate, or set aside, the amended judgment. The defendants relied on alleged defective service, mistake or excusable neglect, misconduct, and other reasons warranting relief. Both sides also agreed that the proposed abstract of judgment—the document listing the judgment amounts—contained errors.

Rule 60(b)(4) and service on the individual defendants

Rule 60(b)(4) allows a court to set aside a judgment that is void, including a judgment entered without personal jurisdiction or in violation of due process. Because the defendants had actual notice of the lawsuit before judgment, the court placed on them the burden of proving that service of process did not occur.

As to Abujaber, the process server stated that she personally handed him the summons and complaint at his place of business. Abujaber said she gave him a blank envelope, did not tell him what it contained, and that he discarded it without opening it. The court said it was uncertain whether service complied with New York law, but concluded that the defendants had not shown that service failed under the separate federal method allowing personal delivery of the summons and complaint. The court therefore denied the Rule 60(b)(4) motion as to Abujaber.

As to Ghadeer, the process server stated that she left the summons and complaint with Abujaber at Ghadeer’s usual place of business and mailed a copy to Ghadeer at that address in an envelope marked “Personal and Confidential.” The defendants did not dispute those facts or that the address was Ghadeer’s usual place of business; they argued only that Abujaber was not authorized to accept service for Ghadeer. The court held that the federal rule permits service using a method authorized by state law and that this method did not require Abujaber to be an agent authorized under the federal rule. The court denied the Rule 60(b)(4) motion as to Ghadeer.

Rule 60(b)(4) and service on Meadow Hill

The defendants argued that Meadow Hill’s service was defective because it depended on service on Abujaber and because Abujaber was not authorized to accept service for the corporation. The court explained that a corporation generally must be served through an officer, managing or general agent, or another agent authorized by appointment or law.

The plaintiffs argued that Abujaber was a high-level corporate employee, pointing to allegations that he was one of only two shareholders, could hire and fire the plaintiffs, signed their paychecks, and was the liquor-license principal of Meadow Hill’s successor. Abujaber denied that he was an officer, director, shareholder, or appointed service agent and said he was only an employee of a business owned by Ghadeer. The court found that the record did not clearly establish Abujaber’s role or whether the process server reasonably identified him as authorized to accept service. Because the parties’ evidence conflicted, the court deferred ruling on the Rule 60(b)(4) motion as to Meadow Hill and ordered an evidentiary hearing.

Other grounds for vacating the judgment

The defendants also relied on Rules 60(b)(1), 60(b)(3), and 60(b)(6). The court held that the requests under Rules 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(3) were untimely because the amended judgment only corrected typographical errors and did not change the original judgment. The one-year period therefore began when the original judgment was entered on August 30, 2021, not when the amended judgment was entered.

The court also found the Rule 60(b)(6) request untimely because the defendants waited nearly a year after judgment despite having actual notice of the lawsuit. They did not explain the delay, and the court found no extraordinary circumstances. The defendants’ argument that another case could produce an improper double recovery did not justify relief because that issue could be addressed in the other case.

The court further stated that, even if the requests were timely, the discretionary factors weighed against vacating the default judgment. It found that the defendants’ failure to respond despite repeated notice was willful, that the plaintiffs could face prejudice from lost records and fading memories, and that any possible defense did not overcome the willful default. The court therefore denied the Rule 60(b)(1), Rule 60(b)(3), and Rule 60(b)(6) motion as to all defendants.

Disposition

The court denied the motion to vacate as to Abujaber and Ghadeer. It ordered Kulwinder Singh, Bikramjit Singh, and Meadow Hill to appear for an evidentiary hearing on July 5, 2023, to resolve factual disputes about service on Meadow Hill. The parties were required to exchange hearing exhibits by June 21, 2023. After the hearing and the court’s decision concerning Meadow Hill, the plaintiffs’ and defendants’ attorneys were directed to confer and submit a corrected proposed abstract of judgment.