Pepaj v. Innovative Facility Service

Background

Valbona Pepaj, representing herself, sued Innovative Facility Services, LLC (IFS), and her former supervisor, Alex Cabral. She alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law based on sex discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. Pepaj alleged that IFS terminated her employment on September 5, 2019, ostensibly for job abandonment. She had first pursued the termination through her union, Local 32BJ, without success.

Pepaj moved to amend her complaint to add Local 32BJ as a defendant. She did not submit a proposed amended complaint or explain the claims she intended to bring against the union. She also sought a default judgment against IFS and Cabral after certificates of default were entered. IFS and Cabral opposed the default judgment and cross-moved to vacate, or set aside, the certificates of default. They also requested permission to move to dismiss the complaint or seek mandatory mediation and arbitration.

Vacating the Certificates of Default

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c), a court may set aside an entry of default for good cause. The court considered whether the defendants’ default was willful, whether setting it aside would prejudice Pepaj, and whether the defendants had a potentially meritorious defense.

Judge Moses found that all three factors favored vacatur. The defendants’ conduct was not willful because, after becoming aware of the lawsuit, their attorneys appeared, requested an extension, complied with the extended deadline, and sought permission to respond to the complaint. The court also found no prejudice to Pepaj from the brief delay. Finally, the defendants raised potentially meritorious defenses, including ineffective service, untimeliness, nondiscriminatory reasons for the termination, and a possible requirement under the collective bargaining agreement to use mediation and arbitration. The court did not decide whether those defenses would ultimately succeed.

The court therefore granted the defendants’ cross-motion to vacate the certificates of default and vacated the certificates entered against IFS and Cabral. Because the defaults were vacated, Pepaj’s motion for a default judgment was denied without prejudice as moot.

Motion to Amend

The court denied Pepaj’s motion to amend without prejudice to filing a properly supported motion. Although courts generally give self-represented plaintiffs an opportunity to amend when the complaint might state a valid claim, Pepaj did not provide a proposed amended pleading or describe the claims she wanted to bring against Local 32BJ.

The existing complaint also did not allege facts suggesting that Local 32BJ violated its duty to fairly represent her or engaged in other misconduct. The court noted that Pepaj’s last apparent contact with the union occurred on March 6, 2020, and stated that the six-month limitations period for a federal claim alleging breach of the duty of fair representation had long expired.

Conclusion and Next Steps

The defendants’ cross-motion to vacate the certificates of default was granted. Pepaj’s motions to amend and for default judgment were denied, with the default-judgment motion denied without prejudice as moot and the amendment motion denied without prejudice to a properly supported motion. The defendants were required to answer or move against the complaint by June 10, 2024. The court also scheduled a pre-motion conference for May 23, 2024.