Aleobua et al v. United Wellness Community, LLC et al
Filing
24
OPINION and ORDER Granting-In-Part And Denying-In-Part Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion For Default Judgment 15 . Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (JCur)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
STACY ALEOBUA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No.
14-cv-12932
vs.
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH
UNITED WELLNESS COMMUNITY,
LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART
PLAINTIFFS’ RENEWED MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (Dkt. 15)
Plaintiffs Stacey Aleboua and Amber Brown bring this action on behalf of themselves, and
on behalf of a putative collective class, against Defendants United Wellness Community, LLC,
Ikechukwu Odum, Sr., Ikechukwu Odum, Jr., Nneka Odum, Naly Odum, and Micholdings, Inc.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.,
and the Bullard Plawecki Employee Right to Know Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 423.501, et seq.
Thomas Bourque entered an appearance on behalf of all of the Defendants except United
Wellness Community, LLC, and he filed an Answer to the Complaint on those Defendants’ behalf.
Defendant United Wellness Community, LLC has neither filed an appearance nor a response to the
Complaint.
Plaintiffs sought and obtained an entry of default against United Wellness Community,
LLC from the Clerk of the Court (Dkts. 12, 13). Plaintiffs now request the Court enter a default
judgment against this Defendant, on behalf of themselves and the putative collective class.
Plaintiffs also ask the Court to defer entering a specific monetary amount for the judgment until
1
further discovery can be accomplished (Dkt. 15). The Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ renewed
motion for default judgment on November 12, 2014.1
Based on the representations made at the hearing, as well as the Court’s independent
review of the record, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion, in part. The Court enters a default
judgment against United Wellness Community, LLC, and in favor of Plaintiffs Aleobua and
Brown, individually. However, the Court declines to enter a default judgment against United
Wellness Community, LLC on behalf of the putative collective-class members at this time. As
Judge Ludington explained in Brown v. City of Detroit, No. 10-12162, 2012 WL 4470433, at *8
(E.D. Mich. Sept. 27, 2012), the Court must first determine whether class certification is
appropriate before it may decide whether to enter a default judgment in favor of the entire class.
“These two questions must be addressed in this order because absent class certification, no default
as to the (nonexistent) class can be made.” Id.; see also Davis v. Hutchins, 321 F.3d 641, 648-649
(7th Cir. 2003); Partington v. Am. Int’l Specialty Lines Ins. Co., 443 F.3d 334, 341 (4th Cir. 2006);
Lagos v. Monster Painting, Inc., No. 11-00331, 2013 WL 5937661, at *5 (D. Nev. Nov. 5, 2013)
(“Only where the class has been properly certified under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 23 may
a court adjudicate the rights of putative class members.”).
At this time, it is unclear whether a collective class will exist throughout this case, and, if
so, who is a member of that class. When Plaintiffs filed their renewed motion for default
judgment, they had not yet requested the Court to even conditionally certify a collective class, and
thus there was no class on whose behalf the Court could enter a default judgment. Furthermore,
1
Plaintiffs filed their original motion for default judgment before obtaining an entry of default
from the Clerk. The Court denied this motion as procedurally improper. 9/11/14 Order (Dkt.
11). Plaintiffs then filed the instant renewed motion for default judgment after obtaining an entry
of default.
2
the parties do not yet know whether any individual will choose to opt in to the class, thereby
becoming a party to the litigation. See O’Brien v. Ed Donnelly Enterprises, Inc., 575 F.3d 567,
583 (6th Cir. 2009) (“These opt-in employees are party plaintiffs, unlike absent class members in a
Rule 23 class action.”). Indeed, until the opt-in period has ended, there is no way to know in
whose favor the default judgment would apply, i.e., who is a member of the collective class. It
also is unknown whether any conditionally-certified collective class will remain in tact throughout
the litigation, or whether decertification will become appropriate after the notice period has
expired. Id. (explaining the two-step process of conditional certification and then considering
decertification). Accordingly, the Court declines to enter a default judgment against United
Wellness Community, LLC on behalf of the putative collective-class members at this time.
Plaintiffs may renew their request at a later date.
The Court also grants Plaintiffs’ request to defer determining the specific monetary amount
of the default judgment until appropriate discovery may be completed.
Accordingly, the Court grants, in part, and denies, in part, Plaintiff’s renewed motion for
default judgment (Dkt. 15).
SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 13, 2014
Detroit, Michigan
s/Mark A. Goldsmith
MARK A. GOLDSMITH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any
unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail
addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on November 13, 2014.
s/Johnetta M. Curry-Williams
CASE MANAGER
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?