Wu v. Sushi Nomado of Manhattan, Inc.

Background

Fen Biao Cai asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, including claims for unpaid minimum wages and overtime, against several purported former employers. Jian Wu was also named as a plaintiff in the consolidated case, but the opinion states that Wu ultimately dismissed his claims.

On January 30, 2024, the case went to a jury trial on Cai’s claims against Sushi Para 33 Corporation, Sushi Para Manhattan Corp., Wenwu Chen, Zhou Lin, Sheng R. Dong, and Ding Feng Zhang. The trial did not include Sushi Nomado of Manhattan, Inc. or Wei Loong Chan. Sushi Nomado had not defended or participated in the case since at least January 2020, after its former lawyer withdrew. Chan had never appeared. Cai obtained certificates showing that both defendants were in default.

Motion for Default Judgment

Cai moved under Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for a default judgment against Nomado and Chan. A default judgment is a judgment entered against a party that fails to defend, but the court explained that a party’s failure to appear does not automatically entitle the opposing party to judgment. Entering default judgment is discretionary, and courts generally prefer resolving disputes on their merits.

The court emphasized the history of repeated filing deficiencies and missed deadlines by Cai’s counsel. Earlier orders had warned that failure to follow court orders, deadlines, and court rules could result in sanctions, including dismissal. After Cai’s counsel filed the default-judgment materials, the court notified counsel that the filing was premature and lacked a required certificate of default. The court then gave counsel another deadline and another warning. Counsel’s later filings remained deficient, including a proposed order to show cause that lacked supporting documents. Four weeks after being notified of that problem, counsel still had not corrected it.

Ruling

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied Cai’s motion for entry of default judgment against Wei Loong Chan and Sushi Nomado of Manhattan, Inc. The court declined to give Cai a fourth opportunity to properly file the motion after at least four explicit warnings. The court also dismissed Cai’s case against Chan and Nomado and directed the clerk to close the motion docket entry and terminate those two defendants. The order did not dismiss the case against the other defendants or decide the underlying wage claims on their merits.