Sanchez v. Devashish Hospitality, LLC Al
322 F.R.D. 32
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Ana Sanchez worked as a food preparer for Great Wraps (Devashish Hospitality, LLC) under owner/operator Saroj Bhatterai from ~Sept 1998 to Sept 2015; she alleges long hours and nonpayment of overtime and reduced wage after July 1, 2015.
- Sanchez says she typically worked ~75–80 hours/week (end of 2012–end of 2014) and ~45 hours/week thereafter until termination, paid $10/hr with overtime paid in cash at straight time.
- She sued (Feb 11, 2016) alleging FLSA and D.C. wage-law violations (unpaid overtime, minimum-wage shortfall, and wage-payment claims); defendants were served but never responded; clerk entered default.
- Court treated Sanchez’s sworn declaration and wage chart as uncontested evidence of hours and pay (no timesheets from defendants) and proceeded on default-judgment analysis.
- The Court found defendants liable, awarded $17,765 in unpaid wages/overtime and $38,901 in liquidated damages (total $56,666), but deferred ruling on attorneys’ fees/costs pending additional evidence of prevailing community rates.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liability for unpaid overtime and D.C. minimum-wage violations | Sanchez: worked overtime and was paid straight time in cash; after July 1, 2015, paid $10 instead of $10.50 | Defendants: no response or defense raised | Court accepted plaintiff's sworn hours/pay allegations on default and found defendants liable under FLSA and D.C. law |
| Appropriateness of default judgment | Sanchez: default appropriate after defendants failed to answer or move to set aside | Defendants: no response; thus no meritorious defense shown | Court exercised discretion to enter default judgment given defendants’ total nonresponsiveness |
| Calculation of unpaid wages and overtime damages | Sanchez: submitted a week-by-week wage chart and sought ~$22,627.70 in unpaid wages | Defendants: no contrary records; Court scrutinized plaintiff’s chart and corrected miscalculations | Court independently calculated unpaid wages/overtime at $17,765 (adjusting plaintiff’s miscalculations) |
| Liquidated damages under D.C. law and FLSA | Sanchez: sought treble liquidated damages for entire period | Defendants: no response | Court applied D.C. statute timing: treble applies only for specified intervals; awarded $38,901 in liquidated damages (not duplicative under FLSA) |
| Attorneys’ fees and costs | Sanchez: submitted counsel affidavit, time records, and requested fees | Defendants: no response | Court deferred fee award because plaintiff failed to supply satisfactory evidence of prevailing community rates and comparable attorneys’ billing data; ordered additional briefing/evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Beech, 636 F.2d 831 (D.C. Cir.) (default judgment generally disfavored; available where party is unresponsive)
- H. F. Livermore Corp. v. Gebruder Loepfe, 432 F.2d 689 (D.C. Cir.) (default judgment appropriate when adversary process halted by unresponsive party)
- Ventura v. L.A. Howard Constr. Co., 134 F. Supp. 3d 99 (D.D.C. 2015) (framework for assessing damages and attorneys’ fees in wage cases)
- Boland v. Elite Terrazzo Flooring, Inc., 763 F. Supp. 2d 64 (D.D.C. 2011) (default admits well-pleaded allegations; damages must be proven)
- Adkins v. Teseo, 180 F. Supp. 2d 15 (D.D.C. 2001) (defaulting defendant deemed to admit allegations)
- Teamsters Local 639 v. Boiler & Furnace Cleaners, Inc., 571 F. Supp. 2d 101 (D.D.C. 2008) (courts protect diligent parties from delay where adversary process halted)
- Transatlantic Marine Claims Agency v. Ace Shipping Corp., 109 F.3d 105 (2d Cir.) (court must ensure basis for damages in default judgment)
- Eley v. District of Columbia, 793 F.3d 97 (D.C. Cir.) (fee applicant must show requested rates align with prevailing community rates)
- Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 572 F. Supp. 354 (D.D.C. 1983) (fee matrix as a starting point for prevailing market rates)
- Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 746 F.2d 4 (D.C. Cir.) (authoritative discussion of attorneys’ fee standards)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984) (lodestar method: reasonable hours × reasonable rate)