Tolano et al v. El Rio Bakery et al

Filing 32

ORDERED that within twenty-one days of the date this Order is docketed, Plaintiffs may submit evidence as to the damages they experienced as a result of their termination. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within twenty-one days of the date this Order is docketed, Defendants must show cause as to why default judgment should not be entered against them. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 8/20/2019. (KEP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
Maria Tolano, Francisco Javier Ponce Bernal,
Jose Daniel Mendoza, and Raquel Herrera,

9
10

Plaintiffs,

No. CV-18-00125-TUC-RM
ORDER

11
v.

12

El Rio Bakery and Carlos Guillermo Vargas
Mendoza,

13
14

Defendants.

15

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ “Motion to Court for Entry of Default

16

Judgment and Request for Monetary Relief” as to Defendants El Rio Bakery and Carlos

17
18
19

Guillermo Vargas Mendoza. (Doc 30.)1 For the reasons explained below, the Court will
order limited further briefing before resolving this Motion.
I.

20
21
22

Procedural and Factual Background
Plaintiffs Maria Tolano, Raquel Herrera, Jose Daniel Mendoza, and Francisco Javier

Ponce Bernal are former employees of Defendant El Rio Bakery. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiffs filed
their operative First Amended Complaint on July 24, 2018. (Doc. 12.) They alleged claims

23

for overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 207(a);

24

failure to pay the minimum wage in compliance with Arizona’s Minimum Wage Act,

25

A.R.S. § 23-362 et. seq.; failure to make timely wage payments under A.R.S. § 23-351;

26
27
28

Plaintiffs filed both a Motion captioned “Motion to Court for Entry of Default Judgment
and Request for Monetary Relief” (Doc. 29) and an identical Motion with an identical
caption but attached to a Memorandum of Points and Authorities (Doc. 30). The Court will
treat the first Motion (Doc. 29) as superseded by the more recent Motion (Doc. 30).
1

1

retaliation in violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3); retaliation in violation of A.R.S.

2

§ 23-364(B); and common-law unjust enrichment. (Id.) Service was executed upon

3

Defendant El Rio Bakery and Defendant bakery-owner Carlos Guillermo Vargas Mendoza

4

on August 28, 2018. (Docs. 15, 16.)

5

Neither Defendant filed an Answer to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. (Doc. 12.)

6

On September 14, 2018, Defendant Vargas Mendoza gave Notice of Filing of Chapter 13

7

Bankruptcy Petition. (Doc. 17.) The Court ordered briefing as to whether the automatic

8

stay provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362 applied to Defendants in light of the pending bankruptcy

9

petition. (Doc. 18.) Both parties agreed that the stay provision applied only to Defendant

10

Vargas Mendoza, the debtor in the bankruptcy petition, and not to Defendant El Rio

11

Bakery. (Docs 19, 20.) On December 17, 2018, the Court provided Defendant El Rio

12

Bakery an extension of time to file its Answer, but no Answer was filed. (Doc. 21.)

13

On January 2, 2019, Plaintiffs requested that the Clerk of Court enter default

14

judgment against Defendant El Rio Bakery pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of

15

Civil Procedure. (Doc. 22.) Default was entered as to Defendant El Rio Bakery by the Clerk

16

of Court on that same day. (Doc. 23.) On February 19, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court

17

dismissed Defendant Vargas Mendoza’s Chapter 13 Petition, thus lifting the automatic stay

18

pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(B). (Doc. 26.) On May 13, 2019, Plaintiffs requested the

19

Clerk of Court enter default against Defendant Vargas Mendoza, and default was entered

20

on March 14, 2019. (Docs. 26, 27.) On April 4, 2019, Plaintiffs moved the Court for entry

21

of default judgment against both Defendant El Rio Bakery and Defendant Vargas

22

Mendoza, and requested monetary relief. (Docs. 29, 30.)

23

II.

Discussion

24

Once a party’s default has been entered, the district court has discretion to grant

25

default judgment against that party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616

26

F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). A defendant’s default does not automatically entitle the

27

plaintiff to a court-ordered judgment. See Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924–25 (9th

28

Cir. 1986). In Eitel v. McCool, the Ninth Circuit laid out seven factors that may be

-2-

1

considered by courts exercising discretion as to the entry of a default judgment: (1) the

2

possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) the merits of the plaintiff’s substantive claim;

3

(3) the sufficiency of the complaint; (4) the sum of money at stake in the action; (5) the

4

possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the default was due to

5

excusable neglect; and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil

6

Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. 783 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986).

7

“[U]pon default, the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the

8

amount of damages, will be taken as true.” Geddes v. United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d 557,

9

560 (9th Cir. 1977). A plaintiff seeking default judgment and monetary relief “is required

10

to prove all damages sought in the complaint.” Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Castworld

11

Prods., Inc., 219 F.R.D. 494, 498 (C.D. Cal. 2003). “The plaintiff is required to provide

12

evidence of its damages, and the damages sought must not be different in kind or amount

13

from those set forth in the complaint.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c); Amini Innovation Corp. v.

14

KTY Int’l Mktg., 768 F.Supp.2d 1049, 1054 (C.D. Cal. 2011). “In determining damages, a

15

court can rely on declarations submitted by the plaintiff[.]” Philip Morris USA, Inc., 219

16

F.R.D. at 498.

17

Plaintiffs request double damages for overtime violations as provided by the FLSA,

18

29 U.S.C. § 216(b). (Doc. 31 ¶ 10.) They also request treble damages for minimum wage

19

violations under Arizona’s Minimum Wage Act, A.R.S. § 23-364(G). (Id. ¶ 11.) They

20

further request $150 in damages for retaliation under A.R.S. § 23-364(G), to be paid for

21

each day between Plaintiff’s alleged termination or constructive discharge and October 4,

22

2018, the date El Rio ceased operations. (Id. ¶ 12.) Plaintiff Tolano requests damages in

23

the amount of $52,171, comprised of $6,190 in base wages and liquidated damages for

24

overtime violations under the FLSA, $11,781 in treble damages under the Arizona

25

Minimum Wage Act, and $34,200 as remedy for retaliation. (Id. at p. 7.) Plaintiff Bernal

26

requests damages in the amount of $51,925, comprised of $7,780 in base wages and

27

liquidated damages for overtime violations under the FLSA, $23,295 in treble damages

28

under the Arizona Minimum Wage Act, and $20,850 as remedy for retaliation. (Id. at p.

-3-

1

10.) Plaintiff Mendoza requests damages in the amount of $30,106, comprised of $6,976

2

in base wages and liquidated damages for overtime violations under the FLSA, $4,680 in

3

treble damages under the Arizona Minimum Wage Act, and $18,450 as remedy for

4

retaliation. (Id. at p. 11.) Plaintiff Herrera requests damages in the amount of $62,876,

5

comprised of $410 in base wages and liquidated damages for overtime violations under the

6

FLSA, $5,916 in treble damages under the Arizona Minimum Wage Act, and $56,550 as

7

remedy for retaliation. (Id. at p. 12-13.)

8

Plaintiffs have supported their requests for overtime violation damages under the

9

FLSA and minimum wage violations under the Arizona Minimum Wage Act with a lengthy

10

and detailed affidavit by their counsel, specifying for each relevant week the number of

11

hours worked, the amount of overtime not paid, the actual wages paid, and the applicable

12

minimum wage at that time. (Id. at p. 25-55.)

13

Plaintiffs, however, have provided no evidence of actual damages suffered as a

14

result of their alleged retaliatory termination or constructive discharge. The enforcement

15

section of Arizona’s Minimum Wage Act provides in relevant part that, “[A]ny employer

16

who retaliates against an employee or other person in violation of this article shall be

17

required to pay the employee an amount set by the commission or a court sufficient to

18

compensate the employee and deter future violations, but not less than one hundred fifty

19

dollars for each day that the violation continued or until legal judgment is final.” A.R.S. §

20

23-364(G). Instead of providing evidence of their actual damages, Plaintiffs each request

21

$150 for each day between their alleged termination or constructive discharge and the day

22

Defendant El Rio ceased operations. (Id. ¶ 12.)

23

The Court has found no decision construing the meaning of “for each day that the

24

violation continued” as provided for by Arizona’s Minimum Wage Act. A.R.S. § 23-

25

364(G). Plaintiffs request statutory damages of $150 for each day following their

26

termination or constructive discharge until Defendant El Rio shut down, and they therefore

27

implicitly argue that the violation “continued” until Defendant El Rio ceased operations.

28

However, the statute’s plain language provides for a monetary remedy “sufficient to

-4-

1

compensate the employee and deter future violations.” A.R.S. § 23-364(G). To determine

2

what is sufficient to compensate an employee for retaliatory termination, and whether such

3

amount would be sufficient to deter future violations, the Court must know the extent to

4

which the employee mitigated damages by securing alternative employment. In a related

5

context, courts have consistently required such evidence in determining backpay

6

compensation under federal employment laws. See Ford Motor Co. v. E.E.O.C., 458 U.S.

7

219, 232 (1982) (plaintiff “forfeits his right to backpay if he refuses a job substantially

8

equivalent to the one he was denied”); see also Caudle v. Bristow Optical Co., Inc., 224

9

F.3d 1014, 1020 (9th Cir. 2002) (“plaintiff seeking back pay [has] a duty to mitigate

10

damages by seeking alternative employment with reasonable diligence”) (internal citation

11

and quotation marks omitted).

12

Plaintiffs have provided no evidence of damages suffered as a result of their alleged

13

retaliatory terminations and constructive discharges. The Court will provide Plaintiffs with

14

an opportunity to submit evidence as to wages lost as a result of their alleged retaliatory

15

termination or constructive discharge. Such evidence, if provided, shall specifically explain

16

the extent to which Plaintiffs attempted to and were able to mitigate those damages.

17
18

The Court will also order Defendants to show cause as to why default judgment
should not be entered.

19

Accordingly,

20

IT IS ORDERED that within twenty-one days of the date this Order is docketed,

21

Plaintiffs may submit evidence as to the damages they experienced as a result of their

22

termination.

23

....

24

....

25

....

26

....

27

....

28

....

-5-

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within twenty-one days of the date this Order

2

is docketed, Defendants must show cause as to why default judgment should not be entered

3

against them.

4

Dated this 20th day of August, 2019.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-6-