Lambert v. Jariwala & Co.

1

CARLA LAMBERT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JARIWALA & CO., LLC, d/b/a J & CO. HOTELS GROUP, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 18-17295 (ZNQ) (DEA)

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

February 10, 2023

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

AMENDED OPINION^[1]

ZAHID N. QURAISHI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon separate Motions for Summary Judgment filed pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The first Motion for Summary Judgment (“Plaintiffs' Motion”, ECF No. 117) was filed by Plaintiff Carla Lambert (“Named Plaintiff” or “Lambert”) on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated (collectively “Plaintiffs”). The second Motion for Summary Judgment (“Jariwala Motion”, ECF No. 128) was filed by Defendants G Matss, LLC, RHR 1211, LLC, Shree AG Hospitality, LLC, d/b/a Boardwalk Seaport Inn, C Z Gabheraj LLC, CGabheraj LLC, Raj Jariwala, Gaurang Jariwala, a/k/a Greg Jariwala, Abhishek Jariwala, a/k/a Rex Jariwala, Ram Pal (“Pal”), and Ahmed Al Haddad (“Al Haddad”) (collectively, “Defendants”).

Plaintiffs filed a Brief in Support of their Motion (“Plaintiffs' Moving Br.”, ECF No. 1173) and a Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute (“Plaintiffs' SMFND”, ECF No. 117-2).

Defendants filed a Brief in Opposition to Lambert's Motion (“Jariwala Cross Mot. and Opp'n”, ECF No. 123), along with their Response to Plaintiffs' Statement of Material Facts (“Jariwala Counter SMFND”, ECF No. 123). Plaintiffs filed a Reply in response to Defendants' Brief in Opposition (“Plaintiffs' Reply”, ECF No. 129).

Similarly Defendants filed a Brief in Support of their Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (“Jariwala Cross Mot. and Opp'n”) and a Statement of Non-Disputed Facts (“Jariwala SMFND”, ECF No. 123). Plaintiffs filed a Brief in Opposition to Jariwala's Motion (“Plaintiffs' Opp'n”, ECF No. 129) along with a Reply Statement of Material Facts.

The Court will also address the Report and Recommendation submitted by the Honorable Douglas E. Arpert, U.S.M.J. (the “Magistrate Judge”) (“Report and Recommendation”, ECF No. 130) and the Motion for Default Judgment as to Pal and Al Haddad filed by Plaintiffs (the “Mot. Def. Judg.”, ECF No. 133).

The Court has carefully considered the parties' submissions and decides the Motions without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78 and Local Civil Rule 78.1. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No 130) and GRANT Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 112), GRANT Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 133), DENY Defendants' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 123), and GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 117).

I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. THE PARTIES

Named Plaintiff filed this action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated alleging that Defendants failed to provide overtime compensation in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The individual defendants owned, operated, and/or managed the New Jersey businesses where Plaintiffs were employed.

B. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action was commenced on December 17, 2018, when Plaintiff filed her Complaint. (ECF No. 1.) On March 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Conditional Certification and Court-Authorized Notice, asking the Court-among other procedural requests-to enter an order conditionally certifying this case as a FLSA collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). (ECF No. 35.) The Court granted her motion. (ECF No. 53). On November 26, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in which they repeated their claims for unpaid overtime pursuant to the FLSA. (ECF No. 58.) On September 11, 2021, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss which sought to dismiss with prejudice the claims of opt-in plaintiffs Ashley Kullberg, Robin Hazen, Jessica Rasmussen, and Ricardo Sindoni pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(v) and 41(b) for failure to comply with discovery. (ECF No. 112.) That Motion was unopposed. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation that recommended it be granted. (ECF No. 130.) On October 1, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendants (ECF No. 117); Defendants opposed their motion and filed a Cross Motion for Summary Judgment on November 1, 2021 (ECF No. 123). On May 20, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Default Judgment as to Defendants Pal and Al Haddad.

I. Undisputed Facts

The Court has found the following facts to be relevant and undisputed.

Rex Jariwala (“Rex”) and Gaurang Jariwala (“Gaurang”) are members/owners of G Matss LLC, which operated an Econo Lodge motel, located in Seaside Heights, New Jersey. (Lambert's SMFND ¶ 1.) Rex and Gaurang are also members/owners of RHR 1211 LLC which operated Palm Villa motel, located in Seaside Heights, New Jersey. (Id. ¶ 2.) Rex was part of the management team for these establishments. (Id. ¶ 3.)

Raj Jariwala (“Raj”) and Hemang Jariwala (“Hemang”) are members of Shree AG Hospitality LLC, CGabheraj LLC, and CZ Gabheraj LLC, which all operated inns or motels in Seaside Heights, New Jersey. (Id. ¶¶ 4-6.)

Named Plaintiff was employed by the Jariwala family and primarily worked at the motels that were operated by the aforementioned LLC's. (Id. ¶ 18.) Opt-in Plaintiffs Ayman Abou Mohamed, Jermaine McEachern (“McEachern”), Samuel Gerve (“Gerve”), and Terrance Williams (“Williams”) also worked for the defendants. (Id. ¶¶ 19-24.) Lambert, much like her opt-in plaintiff counterparts, were paid on an hourly basis and regularly worked more than 40 hours per week.^[2] (Id. ¶¶ 28-29.)

II. JURISDICTION

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' FLSA claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

III. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On April 28, 2022, the Magistrate Judge submitted his Report and Recommendation with respect to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 130.) When a Magistrate Judge seeks to dismiss a claim either on motion or sua sponte, the Magistrate Judge submits a Report and Recommendation to the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72; L. Civ. R. 72.1(a)(2). “Within 14 days . . . a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); L. Civ. R. 72.1(c)(2). The district court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to which a litigant has filed objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); L. Civ. R. 72.1(c)(2); see also State Farm Indem. v. Fornaro, 227 F.Supp.2d 229, 231 (D.N.J. 2002). The district court may then “accept, reject or modify the recommended disposition ....” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). Unlike an Opinion and Order issued by a Magistrate Judge on a non-dispositive matter, a Report and Recommendation does not have force of law unless and until the district court enters an order accepting or rejecting it. United Steelworkers of Am. v. N.J. Zinc Co., 828 F.2d 1001, 1005 (3d Cir. 1987).

Shortly after Named Plaintiff filed this action, opt-in Plaintiffs Ashley Kullberg (ECF No. 4-1), Ricardo Sindoni, Jessica Rasmussen, and Robin L. Hazen, joined this action (ECF No. 86 1). Defendants served Plaintiffs' counsel with written discovery requests consisting of interrogatories and requests for the production of documents on February 1, 2021. (ECF No. 1141.) After a dispute as to whether Defendants had properly directed the interrogatories to the opt-in Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs' counsel agreed to provide responses for all opt-in Plaintiffs. (See ECF No. 114-2.) Opt-in Plaintiffs Kullberg, Robin, Rasmussen, and Sindoni, however, did not provide their responses. Based on the record, it appears that these opt-in Plaintiffs simply did not respond to attempts by their counsel to reach them. (See ECF No. 114-3) (Plaintiffs' counsel advising defense counsel that he has “not heard from the Opt-in Plaintiffs who have not provided discovery responses.”) Fact discovery subsequently closed, the deadline having expired on August 31, 2021.

Despite ample opportunity, opt-in Plaintiffs Kullberg, Robin, Rasmussen, and Sindoni have not provided answers to the interrogatories served by Defendants. They have not responded to attempts by their counsel to obtain the responses. Additionally, they have not opposed Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. In all of these respects, it appears these Plaintiffs have abandoned their claims.

As such, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss these opt-in plaintiffs pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), which instructs that a district court may dismiss a plaintiff's case “[f]or failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of the court.” Brown v. Smith, Civ. No. 20-8463, 2021 WL 2390077, at *1 (D.N.J. June 11, 2021). In his recommendation, the Magistrate Judge notes that when a court is asked to sanction a party by depriving that party of the right to proceed with or defend against a claim, the court applies the analysis established in Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir.1984). The Poulis factors are as follows:

(1) [t]he extent of the party's personal responsibility; (2) the prejudice to the adversary caused by the failure to meet scheduling orders and respond to discovery; (3) a history of dilatoriness; (4) whether the conduct of the party or the attorney was willful or in bad faith; (5) the effectiveness of sanctions other than dismissal, which entails an analysis of alternative sanctions; and (6) the meritoriousness of the claim or defense.

747 F.2d at 868. As noted by the Magistrate Judge communications between the parties show that...