Acosta v. DT & C Global Management

Dist. Ct. did not err in entering default judgments in two related cases against same defendant-employer and other defendants alleging violations of state and federal wage-payment laws and in denying defendants’ motions to vacate said default judgments based on claim that: (1) defendant-employer’s owner failed to receive either motion by defendant’s counsel to withdraw or Dist. Ct.’s order directing him to appear at hearing because defendant was no longer in business; (2) defendant’s owner did not receive notice of default judgment until Summer of 2016 and filed motion to vacate in October of 2016; and (3) defendant’s owner had health issues in 2011 and 2014. Dist. Ct. could properly find that said excuses failed to establish good cause for failing to abide by Dist. Ct. orders that formed basis of default judgments, since defendant’s owner had obligation to keep track of instant cases and to apprise clerk of any change in address. Also, denial of motion to vacate was appropriate, where instant two-month delay in filing motion to vacate default judgments did not demonstrate “quick action,” especially where defendant’s owner conceded that he read January press release about default judgment shortly after press release was published, and defendants otherwise failed to proffer meritorious defense to allegations in instant complaints.