Nasiri v. T.A.G. Security Protective Services Inc. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ELIAS NASIRI, Case No. 18-cv-01170-NC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION 12 FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT v. 13 Re: Dkt. No. 119 T.A.G. SECURITY PROTECTIVE 14 SERVICES INC., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 In this lawsuit, plaintiff Elias Nasiri accuses Defendants of violating California and 18 federal labor laws. Although defendant T.A.G. Security Protective Services Inc. 19 (“T.A.G.”) initially appeared, its attorney has since withdrawn and, because T.A.G. cannot 20 represent itself in court, its answer has been stricken. See Dkt. No. 74. Nasiri now moves 21 for default judgment against T.A.G. See Dkt. No. 119. Nasiri’s motion, however, fails to 22 adequately explain how it arrived at its damages calculation. Accordingly, the Court 23 DENIES Nasiri’s motion for default judgment without prejudice. 24 I. Background 25 T.A.G. provides security services. See Dkt. No. 80 (“SAC”) ¶ 11. Between June 26 2015 and December 2016, Nasiri worked for T.A.G. as a security guard. See id. ¶ 12, 19. 27 During his employment, Nasiri frequently worked over eight hours per day and forty hours 1 Nasiri was required to work split shifts and was denied meal and rest breaks. Id. ¶¶ 14–15. 2 Over the same period, T.A.G. required Nasiri to use his personal cell phone for work 3 purposes without reimbursement. Id. ¶ 18. 4 On February 22, 2018, Nasiri filed suit to recover lost wages and for statutory 5 penalties under California labor laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 6 U.S.C. § 207. See Dkt. No. 1. After T.A.G. successfully moved to dismiss the complaint 7 (see Dkt. Nos. 23, 36), Nasiri filed his first amended complaint on August 18, 2018. See 8 Dkt. No. 41. T.A.G. answered the first amended complaint on September 4, 2018. See 9 Dkt. No. 44. 10 On February 26, 2019, T.A.G.’s counsel sought to withdraw, noting that T.A.G. had 11 failed to pay expenses or attorneys’ fees. See Dkt. No. 59 at 5. The Court granted the 12 motion to withdraw on April 3, 2019. See Dkt. Nos. 64, 70. Nasiri subsequently moved to 13 strike T.A.G.’s answer and filed a second amended complaint naming T.A.G.’s directors as 14 additional defendants. See Dkt. Nos. 72, 74, 80. 15 Nasiri now moves for default judgment against T.A.G. See Dkt. No. 119. All 16 parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. See Dkt. Nos. 8, 21, 28, 17 108, 109. 18 II. Legal Standard 19 Default may be entered against a party who fails to plead or otherwise defend an 20 action and against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). 21 After entry of default, the Court has discretion to grant default judgment on the merits of 22 the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). In 23 deciding whether to grant default judgment, the Court considers the following factors: 24 (1) the merits of the plaintiff's substantive claim; (2) the sufficiency of the 25 complaint; (3) the sum of money at stake in the action; (4) the possibility of 26 prejudice to the plaintiff; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material 27 facts; (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect; and (7) the strong 1 2 Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471–72 (9th Cir. 1986). The factual allegations of the 3 complaint, except those concerning damages, are deemed admitted by the non-responding 4 parties. Shanghai Automation Instrument Co. v. Kuei, 194 F. Supp. 2d 995 (N.D. Cal. 5 2001); see also Geddes v. United Fin. Grp., 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977) (“[t]he 6 general rule of law is that upon default the factual allegations of the complaint, except 7 those relating to the amount of damages, will be taken as true”). 8 III. Discussion 9 “Courts have inherent equitable powers to dismiss actions or enter default 10 judgments for failure to prosecute, contempt of court, or abusive litigation practices.” 11 Televideo Systems, Inc v Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917 (9th Cir 1987) (citing Roadway 12 Express, Inc v Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764 (1980)). “The general rule of law is that upon 13 default the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the amount of 14 damages, will be taken as true.” Id. at 917–18. 15 Factors which may be considered by courts in exercising discretion as to the 16 entry of a default judgment include: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the 17 plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiff’s substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of 18 the complaint, (4) the sum of money at stake in the action; (5) the possibility 19 of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the default was due to 20 excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of 21 Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. 22 Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471–72 (9th Cir. 1986). 23 Here, Nasiri requests judgment of $935,256.91 in damages for his overtime claim, 24 meal and rest breaks claim, Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) penalties, attorneys’ 25 fees and costs, and prejudgment interest. Nasiri, however, has not adequately proven his 26 damages request. 27 To support his motion, Nasiri provided paystubs demonstrating his hourly rate and 1 (“Nasiri Decl.”). Nasiri also provided a chart purporting to show the amount of damages 2 attributable to each claim. That chart, however, fails to explain how he arrived at each 3 damages amount and the Court cannot discern how he arrived at each sum. 4 Further, a substantial bulk of Nasiri’s damages claim is for prejudgment interest in 5 the amount of $265,668.56. See Nakama Decl., Ex. A at 3. That amount more than triples 6 the damages claim, which totals only $72,709. See id. As Nasiri recognizes, the legal rate 7 for prejudgment interest is “10 percent per annum.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3289(b). The Court 8 cannot fathom how Nasiri arrived at his prejudgment interest calculation. 9 Next, Nasiri also seeks PAGA penalties for failure to provide accurate wage 10 statements in violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 226.3 in the amount of $375,000 and for failure 11 to reimburse reasonable business expenses in violation of § 2802 in the amount of 12 $150,000. See Dkt. No. 119 at 11–12. Both requests are based on an assumption that 13 T.A.G. employed an average of 25 employees. Id. In his second amended complaint, 14 however, Nasiri did not allege that T.A.G. employed an average of 25 individuals. Cf. 15 Televideo, 826 F.2d at 917–18 (“The general rule of law is that upon default the factual 16 allegations of the complaint . . . will be taken as true.”) (emphasis added). 17 Finally, Nasiri seeks $56,805 in attorneys’ fees. However, Nasiri provided no 18 information justifying the hourly rates for his attorneys or whether those rates are “in line 19 with those prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably 20 comparable skill, experience and reputation.” Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 21 973, 980 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 n.11 (1984)); see 22 also Civil L.R. 37-4(b)(3) (requiring fee requests to “set forth an appropriate justification 23 for any attorney-fee hourly rate claimed.”). 24 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Nasiri’s motion for default judgment. 25 IV. Conclusion 26 The Court DENIES Nasiri’s motion for default judgment. This order is without 27 prejudice to a renewed motion that addresses the deficiencies discussed in this order. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 3 || Dated: March 10, 2020 h&-_—_———~ _ NATHANAEL M. COUSINS 4 United States Magistrate Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 «14 S 15 16 o 17 1g zZ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28