United States District Court, D. Maryland
IRIS SANABRIA, et al.
COCODY, INC., et al.
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
pending and ready for resolution in this unpaid wage and
overtime case is a motion for reconsideration and to vacate
default judgment filed by Defendant Moussa Toure
(“Defendant”). (ECF No. 18). The issues have been
briefed, and the court now rules, no hearing being deemed
necessary. Local Rule 105.6. For the following reasons, the
motion will be denied.
complaint filed by Plaintiffs Iris Sanabria, Karina Pleitez,
and Rosario Lainez (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)
recites that they were employed as wait staff at Cocody,
Inc.'s restaurant known as “Coco Cabana Bar and
Grill.” Defendant is the “founder and
director” of Cocody, Inc. Plaintiffs allege that they
regularly worked an average of 27 hours per week on Friday,
Saturday, and Sunday nights but were not compensated. (ECF
No. 16, at 1).
filed their complaint against Defendant and Cocody, Inc. on
February 9, 2016, alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (the “FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201,
et seq.; the Maryland Wage and Hour Law (the
“MWHL”), Md.Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. §
3-401, et seq.; and the Maryland Wage Payment and
Collection Law (the “MWPCL”), Md.Code Ann., Lab.
& Empl. § 3-501, et seq. (ECF No. 1).
of process was properly effected on Cocody, Inc. on February
22, and upon Defendant on March 22. (ECF Nos. 5; 7). When
Defendant and Cocody, Inc. failed to respond within the
requisite time period, Plaintiffs moved for the entry of
default. (ECF No. 8). On May 9, 2016, the clerk entered
default. (ECF No. 9). Default judgment was entered against
Defendant and Cocody, Inc. on July 17, 2017. (ECF No. 16).
Defendant filed the pending motion for reconsideration and to
vacate default judgment on August 29 (ECF No. 18), and
Plaintiffs filed a response and amended response in
opposition (ECF Nos. 19; 20).
Standard of Review
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), a party may obtain relief from a judgment
or final order based upon:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for
a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud ...
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4)
the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied,
released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment
that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it
prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason
that justifies relief.
general ‘reconsideration of a judgment after its entry
is an extraordinary remedy which should be used
sparingly.'” Pacific Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat. Fire
Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998)
(citation omitted), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1104
argue that Defendant's motion should be denied because he
has failed to assert a meritorious defense. (ECF No. 19
¶ 15). To receive Rule 60(b) relief, the movant must
make a threshold showing of timeliness, “a meritorious
claim or defense, ” and lack of unfair prejudice to the
opposing party, in addition to one of the grounds for relief
enumerated under Rule 60(b). Coleman v. Jabe, 633
F.App'x 119, 120 (4th Cir. 2016) (mem.)
(quoting Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496, 501
(4th Cir. 2011)). Here, Defendant states that
“Plaintiffs are not truthful and [have] committed fraud
with their lies upon this Honorable Court and Defendant
[has] the evidence to refute what the Plaintiffs have claimed
to this Court.” (ECF No. 18 ¶ 16). Defendant has
presented no facts to support his claim of a meritorious
defense and thus fails to provide the court with a
satisfactory explanation of the merits of his alleged
defense. United States v. $10, 000.00 in U.S.
Currency, No. 1:00-CV-0023, 2002 WL 1009734, at *3 (M.D.
N.C. Jan. 29, 2002) (the movant “must present the Court
with ‘a satisfactory explanation of the merits of the
defense' that goes beyond a mere assertion of unfounded
legal conclusions” (citation omitted)); Consol.
Masonry & Fireproofing, Inc. v. Wagman Constr.
Corp., 383 F.2d 249, 252 (4th Cir. 1967)
(finding that the movant in a contract suit did not establish
a meritorious ...