Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Albanez v. Breeding Construction, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Maryland

March 10, 2016




Presently pending and ready for resolution in this unpaid wage case is a supplemental motion for default judgment and for attorneys’ fees and costs filed by Plaintiff Julio Albanez (“Plaintiff”). (ECF No. 10). The court now rules, no hearing being deemed necessary. Local Rule 105.6. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion will be granted in part and denied in part.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

Unless otherwise noted, the following facts are set forth in the complaint. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff worked for Defendant Breeding Construction, Inc. (“Breeding Construction”) and James Breeding, President of Breeding Construction, from June 22, 2010 until March 26, 2013 (the “Employment Period”). Plaintiff avers that he took time off from July 10, 2011 until July 10, 2012 due to a work accident. (ECF No. 10-2 ¶ 2). Plaintiff was paid $25.00 per hour during the Employment Period. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 16). According to Plaintiff, he worked an average of fifty to sixty hours per week during the Employment Period, sometimes working as much as eighty hours per week. (Id. ¶ 17). Plaintiff contends that he was not compensated for overtime hours worked and is owed approximately $17, 250 in overtime wages. According to the complaint, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff the required overtime wages. (Id. ¶ 21). Plaintiff also notes that he believes Defendants did not post signs describing employees’ rights to minimum wage and overtime. (ECF No. 10-2 ¶ 6).

B. Procedural Background

Plaintiff filed his complaint on June 6, 2014. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff alleges overtime violations pursuant to the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 3-401 et seq. (“MWHL”) (Count I); the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (“FLSA”) (Count II); and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 3-501 et seq. (“MWPCL”) (Count III).

Service of process was properly effected on both Defendants. When Defendants failed to respond within the requisite time period, Plaintiff moved for entry of default as to Breeding Construction. (ECF No. 4). The clerk entered default on September 17, 2014. (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment against Breeding Construction on February 11, 2015. (ECF Nos. 6; 7). On July 8, the court issued a memorandum opinion and order denying Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice to allow Plaintiff to provide additional detail regarding his calculation of damages. (ECF Nos. 8; 9). Plaintiff filed the requested supplement on July 22. (ECF No. 10). To date, Defendants have taken no action in the case.

II. Standard of Review

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a), “[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party’s default.” Rule 55(b)(1) provides that the clerk may enter a default judgment if the plaintiff’s claim is “for a sum certain or a sum that can be made certain by computation.”

“Upon [entry of] default, the well-pled allegations in a complaint as to liability are taken as true, but the allegations as to damages are not.” S.E.C. v. Lawbaugh, 359 F.Supp.2d 418, 422 (D.Md. 2005). It remains, however, “for the court to determine whether these unchallenged factual allegations constitute a legitimate cause of action.” Agora Fin., LLC v. Samler, 725 F.Supp.2d 491, 494 (D.Md. 2010). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c) limits the type of judgment that may be entered based on a party’s default: “A default judgment must not differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the pleadings.” Thus, where a complaint specifies the amount of damages sought, such as here, the plaintiff is limited to entry of a default judgment in that amount. “[C]ourts have generally held that a default judgment cannot award additional damages . . . because the defendant could not reasonably have expected that his damages would exceed that amount.” In re Genesys Data Technologies, Inc., 204 F.3d 124, 132 (4th Cir. 2000). While the court may hold a hearing to consider evidence as to damages, it is not required to do so; it may rely instead on “detailed affidavits or documentary evidence to determine the appropriate sum.” Adkins v. Teseo, 180 F.Supp.2d 15, 17 (D.D.C. 2001) (citing United Artists Corp. v. Freeman, 605 F.2d 854, 857 (5thCir. 1979)).

III. Analysis

A. Liability

Defendants were served with the complaint but have not responded. Accordingly, all of Plaintiff’s allegations as ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.