Delcid v. Isabella

1

LUCAS DELCID, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL ISABELLA, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. MJM-20-3167

United States District Court, D. Maryland

March 29, 2024

MEMORANDUM

Matthew J. Maddox, United States District Judge

Plaintiffs Lucas Delcid, Danielle Harris, and Milena Radulovic (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) commenced this civil action alleging that defendants Michael Isabella, Johannes Allender, Taha Ismail, and Dhiandra Olson (collectively “Defendants”) unlawfully withheld wages in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C §§ 201 et seq. (“FLSA”); the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act, D.C. Code §§ 32-1001 et seq. (“DCMWA”); and the District of Columbia Wage Payment and Collection Law, D.C Code §§ 32-1301 et seq. (“DCWPCL”). ECF No. 1 (Complaint). The FLSA claims were brought as a putative collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and the D.C. law claims were brought as a putative class action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23. Id. Plaintiffs reached settlement agreements with defendants Allender, Ismail, and Olson, and the Court entered an Order granting approval of the settlement agreements. ECF No. 94. Defendant Isabella has not participated in this litigation, and the Clerk of Court has entered default as to this defendant. ECF No. 20.

Currently pending are Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Default Judgment Against Defendant Isabella and Class Certification, ECF No. 89, and Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs Against Defendant Isabella, ECF No. 92. With leave of the Court, Plaintiffs filed a supplemental brief in support of their Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. ECF No. 98. Defendant Isabella has not filed any response to the pending motions.^[1] For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs' motions will be granted; however, the requested award of attorney's fees and costs will be reduced from a total amount of $499,413.91 to $332,939.28.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Relevant Factual Background^[2]

Plaintiffs each worked for Defendants at a restaurant called Requin located in a waterfront neighborhood of Southwest Washington, D.C. known as “the Wharf.” Compl. ¶ 7. The corporate entity that employed Plaintiffs, ReqWharf, LLC, had its principal place of business in Gaithersburg, Maryland. Id. ¶ 6. Defendant Isabella was an owner of the restaurant, as well as its President and Chief Executive Officer, and “had direct responsibility for managing and overseeing” its business operations. Id. ¶ 14. Isabella opened Requin at its Wharf location in October 2017. Id. ¶ 21. The remaining Defendants held various executive positions and had managerial responsibilities at Requin. Id. ¶¶ 15-17.

In or around November 2018, “Plaintiffs started experiencing interruptions in their regular receipt of wages, tips, and accompanying paystubs through a payroll service,” and “Defendants' payment of wages to Requin employees became sporadic and inconsistent ....” Id. ¶¶ 22-29. Instead of receiving paychecks through the payroll service, some employees began receiving personal checks from Defendants or checks that did not bear the name ReqWharf, LLC, which were drawn on the accounts of other corporate entities affiliated with Isabella's restaurant group. Id. ¶ 29. “Some of the paychecks received by Plaintiffs were returned for insufficient funds; others were returned marked as unauthorized ....” Id. ¶ 32. While “aware that Requin did not have the funds necessary to continue operating and paying its employees the wages they earned,” Defendants continued to “instruct[] employees to report to work and perform duties for which Defendants could not pay them.” Id. ¶ 38. “On or about December 22, 2018, Defendants permanently shut down Requin without prior notice to Plaintiffs.” Id. ¶ 40. Defendants willfully and intentionally failed to pay Plaintiffs and similarly situated Requin employees for work performed before Requin was closed. Id. ¶¶ 43, 46.

Each Plaintiff has submitted a declaration. Delcid and Radulovic attest that, to date, they have not been fully paid for their work during their employment at Requin. ECF Nos. 30-5 & 307. Harris attests that she did not receive overtime pay that she earned at Requin after April 8, 2018. ECF No. 30-6.

ReqWharf, LLC filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in February 2019. In re: ReqWharf, LLC, Case No. 19-12585, ECF No. 1 (Bankr. D. Md. Feb. 28, 2019). The bankruptcy case was later dismissed. Id., ECF No. 27.

B. Procedural Background

Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on October 30, 2020, and summons were issued on November 2, 2020. Defendant Isabella was served on November 20, 2020. ECF No. 5. His responsive pleading was due on or before December 11, 2020, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i), but Isabella never filed an answer or asserted any defense in this matter. On December 15, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion for entry of default as to Isabella. ECF No. 12. On January 11, 2021, the Clerk entered default for want of answer or other defense, ECF No. 20, and issued Isabella a notice of default, ECF No. 21. The notice of default stated that Isabella had 30 days to file a motion to vacate the Order of Default and notified Isabella that if timely action was not taken, the Court would “act promptly on any pending motions for entry of default judgment, which may result in a monetary judgment against [Isabella].” Id. Isabella did not make any appearance in this case or file any motion to vacate the Order of Default within the time provided in the notice.

Defendants Allender, Ismail, and Olson filed Answers to the Complaint, ECF Nos. 9, 29 & 31, and this matter proceeded to discovery. On February 10, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for conditional FLSA collective action certification and court-facilitated notice. ECF No. 67. Plaintiffs later reached settlement agreements with Allender, Ismail, and Olson, which the Court preliminarily approved. ECF Nos. 70, 81 & 82.^[3] For settlement purposes only, the Court certified Plaintiffs' proposed classes of similarly situated Requin employees and appointed Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel. Id. On October 12, 2023, the Court approved Plaintiffs' proposed settlement class notice program and settlement administrator, ECF No. 85, and the notice program began on November 13, 2023, ECF No. 87. The deadline to request exclusion from the settlement classes was December 13, 2023. Id. The settlement administrator has reported that, as of December 29, 2023, no requests for exclusion from, or objections to, the settlements have been received, and eleven class members have submitted claims for portions of the settlement proceeds. Id. The Court has granted final approval of the class and collective action settlements. ECF No. 94.

On January 23, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Entry of Default Judgment Against Defendant Isabella and Class Certification. ECF No. 89. On February 2, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs Against Defendant Isabella seeking a total award of $499,413.91. ECF No. 92. Both motions are supported by several exhibits. Following a virtual hearing on February 20, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a supplemental brief with additional exhibits in support of their Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. ECF No. 98. Defendant Isabella has not appeared or otherwise opposed either motion.

II. CLASS CERTIFICATION

Plaintiffs request certification of two proposed classes pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23: (1) an “Unpaid Wages” class comprised of “persons who were Defendants' employees, who worked at Requin, and who did not receive wages for their work for Defendants during their employment at Requin”; and (2) an “Unpaid Overtime” class comprised of “persons who were Defendants' employees, who worked at Requin, and who did not receive overtime pay for their overtime work for Defendants during their employment at Requin.” ECF No. 89 at 15; ECF No. 89-7 at 2. The Court previously certified these classes for settlement purposes as to defendants Allender, Ismail, and Olson. ECF Nos. 70, 81 & 82. Plaintiffs now seek certification of the same classes for purposes of litigation and default judgment against Isabella. ECF No. 89 at 15.

Members of a class may sue as representative parties on behalf of the entire class if “(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a). Upon satisfaction of these prerequisites, a class action may be maintained if “the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3). “The predominance requirement ‘tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.'” Thorn v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., 445 F.3d 311, 319 (4th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).

Among the factors a district court should consider in deciding whether a class action meets [the predominance and superiority] requirements are: (A) the interest of members of the class in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by or against members of the class; (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; (D) the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class

...