Ubinger v. Urban Housekeeping LLC

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: May 23, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01802
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Joyce Ubinger, No. CV-23-01802-PHX-ROS

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Urban Housekeeping LLC, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff filed this suit to recover unpaid minimum wages under federal and state 16 law. Defendants Urban Housekeeping, LLC, Urban Housekeeping-AB, LLC, and 17 Meredith De Olavarria (collectively “Defendants”) were served but did not appear.1 The 18 Clerk of Court entered each defendant’s default and Plaintiff filed a motion for default 19 judgment. 20 District courts in the Ninth Circuit often analyze the seven “Eitel factors” when 21 deciding whether to enter default judgment.2 See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 22 1986). As recently explained in a similar case, it is not possible to conduct a meaningful

23 1 Plaintiff also named as a defendant John Doe Olavarria, allegedly Meredith De Olavarria’s spouse. It is unknown if John Doe exists and Plaintiff filed a statement 24 indicating any judgment against John Doe may not be enforceable. Therefore, John Doe will be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff may seek to modify the judgment to include 25 judgment against John Doe if she determines John Doe exists and was properly served before judgment was entered against Meredith De Olavarria. 26 2 The seven factors are: “(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiff’s substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money at 27 stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal 28 Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits.” Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471–72 (9th Cir. 1986). 1 analysis of the first, fifth, sixth, and seventh Eitel factors when no defendant appears. 2 Ausseresses v. Pride Security, CV-23-2662 (D. Ariz. May 15, 2024). Therefore, as in every 3 case where no defendant appears, those four factors support entry of default judgment in 4 this case. 5 The only remaining Eitel factors are the second, third, and fourth. The second and 6 third factors require assessing the merit of Plaintiff’s claim and the sufficiency of her 7 complaint. These factors weigh in favor of entering default judgment because the 8 complaint contains sufficient factual allegations establishing claims for relief under federal 9 and state law. That is, the complaint alleges Plaintiff worked for Defendants from June 5, 10 2023, through August 8, 2023. Plaintiff was paid $25 per hour. In her final workweek 11 with Defendants, Plaintiff worked approximately 20 hours. Plaintiff was not paid for those 12 hours. Plaintiff also was not paid for five hours of work performed prior to her last 13 workweek. Those allegations are sufficient to state plausible claims under federal and state 14 law regarding unpaid wages. 15 The fourth Eitel factor requires the Court assess if default judgment is appropriate 16 given “the sum of money at stake in the action.” Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471. Plaintiff is 17 seeking a judgment of $1,875. This relatively small amount supports entry of default 18 judgment. 19 The factors all support entry of default judgment. Plaintiff submitted a declaration 20 establishing her hourly wage and number of hours she worked. And Plaintiff’s motion for 21 default judgment analyzes the governing federal and state laws, including the provisions 22 of those laws that allow for liquidated damages. The declaration and motion for default 23 judgment establish Plaintiff is entitled to the full amount she seeks. 24 Accordingly, 25 IT IS ORDERED Defendant John Doe Olavarria is DISMISSED WITHOUT 26 PREJUDICE. 27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 29) is 28 GRANTED. 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment against || Urban Housekeeping, LLC, Urban Housekeeping-AB, LLC, and Meredith De Olavarria || such that Urban Housekeeping, LLC, and Urban Housekeeping-AB, LLC, are jointly and 4|| severally liable for $1,875 and Urban Housekeeping, LLC, Urban Housekeeping-AB, 5 || LLC, and Meredith De Olavarria are jointly and severally liable for $831 of the $1,875. 6 Dated this 22nd day of May, 2024. 7 fo -

Honorable Roslyn ©. Silver 10 Senior United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-