Portillo v. Smith Commons Dc, LLC
Civil Action No. 2020-0049
| D.D.C. | Aug 2, 2021Background
- Four restaurant employees (Portillo, Tejada, Romero, Loaeza) sued Smith Commons and managers for unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the FLSA and D.C. wage laws.
- Plaintiffs served the original complaint (filed Jan 9, 2020) and later filed a First Amended Complaint (Jan 30, 2020) that added a new plaintiff (Loaeza), new factual allegations, and increased the damages sought by about $63,000.
- The record contains proof of service for the original complaint but no evidence that the First Amended Complaint was served on the remaining defendants (managers McNeill and Chanaka).
- The Clerk entered default based on defendants’ failure to respond to the original complaint; plaintiffs then moved for default judgment relying on that original complaint.
- The court denied the motion because the amended complaint is the operative pleading, it was not shown to be served, and Rule 5(a)/Rule 4 service requirements and the need for proper notice/personal jurisdiction were not satisfied. Plaintiffs were directed to serve the amended complaint and may renew a default motion if defendants remain unresponsive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants’ failure to respond to the original complaint supports default judgment | Default judgment appropriate because defendants failed to answer the original complaint | Defendants did not respond; court emphasizes service requirement and operative pleading rules | Denied — default on the original complaint is inadequate once an amended complaint is filed and becomes operative |
| Whether service of the First Amended Complaint was required despite defendants’ purported default | Plaintiffs relied on service of the original complaint and clerk defaults to justify no further service | Legal position (as applied by court): when an amended complaint adds a party, new claims, or substantive facts, Rule 5(a) requires service | Held: Service was required; plaintiffs failed to show service of the amended complaint, so default judgment cannot issue |
| Whether the court has personal jurisdiction / may enter default without proper service | Plaintiffs sought judgment despite lack of proof of service of the operative pleading | Proper service is prerequisite to personal jurisdiction and to entering default judgment | Held: Court lacks the necessary service-based basis for jurisdiction; default judgment denied; plaintiffs must serve under Rule 4 and may refile if defendants remain unresponsive |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. District of Columbia, 598 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2009) (a defendant’s obligation to respond arises only upon service of the summons and complaint)
- Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (default judgment improper where service requirements are unmet)
- Mwani v. Osama Bin Laden, 417 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (entry of default judgment is not automatic)
- Jackson v. Beech, 636 F.2d 831 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (courts are reluctant to enter default judgments; cases favor resolution on the merits)
- Braun v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 228 F. Supp. 3d 64 (D.D.C. 2017) (personal jurisdiction requires proper service of process)
- Toms v. Hantman, 530 F. Supp. 2d 188 (D.D.C. 2008) (service must be satisfied before default judgment based on lack of response)
- Pinson v. United States DOJ, 69 F. Supp. 3d 108 (D.D.C. 2014) (an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint)
- Cont’l Transfert Technique Ltd. v. Fed. Gov’t of Nigeria, 697 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D.D.C. 2010) (a motion for default cannot proceed based on a complaint that no longer forms the basis of the litigation)