Rios v. Lux Interior and Renovation LLC

1 WO [5] 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA [8] 9 Ines Ruiz Rios, et al., No. CV-23-01686-PHX-DJH 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER 11 v. 12 Lux Interior and Renovation LLC, et al., 13 Defendants. [14] 15 At issue is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Default Judgment against Defendants. 16 (Doc. 22). Defendants did not file a response. For the reasons set forth below, the Court 17 finds that default judgment against Defendants is warranted. 18 I. Background 19 Plaintiffs Ines Ruiz Rios, Alba Garcia Herrera, Reynaldo Hidalogo Diaz, Lazaro 20 Yusnier Lemus Cedeno, Omar Mejia, Gerardo Meza, Walter Rodriguez, Alcides 21 Rodriguez Rugama, and Amara Abigail Terrazas Raya (“Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint on 22 August 18, 2023, against their former employers, Lux Interior and Renovation LLC, 23 Katisleidys Martinez, John Doe Martinez, Julia Martinez, and John Doe Martinez II 24 (“Defendants”). (Doc. 1). The Complaint alleges claims under the Fair Labor Standards 25 Act (“FLSA”) for unpaid overtime and minimum wages and the Arizona Minimum Wage 26 Act (“AMWA”) for unpaid minimum wages and unpaid wages. (Id.) An additional claim 27 under the Arizona Wage Act (“AWA”) is also pled. (Id.) Plaintiffs served process on 28 Defendants via alternative service on October 19, 2023. (Docs. 9–12). Defendants failed 1 to answer or otherwise respond, and the Clerk of Court entered default against all 2 Defendants on November 7, 2023. (Doc. 15). Plaintiffs then filed the present Motion for 3 Entry of Default Judgment on March 11, 2024, and Defendants have not responded. 4 (Doc. 22). Plaintiffs also request that the Court allow them to recover attorney fees and 5 costs. (Doc. 22 at 24). 6 II. Default Judgment 7 After the Clerk of Court enters default, the Court may enter default judgment 8 pursuant to Rule 55(b). The Court’s “decision whether to enter a default judgment is a 9 discretionary one.” Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). Although the 10 Court should consider and weigh relevant factors as part of the decision-making process, 11 it “is not required to make detailed findings of fact.” Fair Housing of Marin v. Combs, [12] 285 F.3d 899, 906 (9th Cir. 2002). In deciding whether default judgment is warranted, the 13 Court considers the following factors: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) 14 the merits of the claims, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the amount of money at 15 stake, (5) the possibility of factual disputes, (6) whether default is due to excusable 16 neglect, and (7) the policy favoring decisions on the merits. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 17 F.2d 1470 , 1471–72 (9th Cir. 1986). When considering the merits and sufficiency of the 18 complaint, the Court accepts as true the complaint's well-pled factual allegations, but the 19 plaintiff must establish all damages sought in the complaint. See Geddes v. United Fin. 20 Grp., 559 F.2d 557 , 560 (9th Cir. 1977). Having reviewed the Complaint and the default 21 judgment motion, the Courts finds that the Eitel factors weigh in favor of default 22 judgment as to the FLSA, AMWA, and AWA claims. 23 A. The Possibility of Prejudice 24 The first Eitel factor weighs in favor of default judgment. Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471. 25 Defendants failed to respond to the Complaint or otherwise appear in this action despite 26 being served by Plaintiffs. (Docs. 8–12). Moreover, by failing to answer, Defendants are 27 deemed to have admitted the truth of those statements. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d) 28 (“Averments in a pleading to which a responsive pleading is required, other than those as 1 to the amount of damage, are admitted when not denied in the responsive pleading”). 2 The Court is satisfied that if the Motion is not granted, Plaintiffs “will likely be without 3 other recourse for recovery.” PepsiCo, Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1172 , 1177 4 (C.D. Cal. 2002). This factor supports the entry of default judgment. 5 B. Merits of the Claims and Sufficiency of the Complaint 6 The second and third Eitel factors favor default judgment where the complaint 7 sufficiently states a plausible claim for relief under the Rule 8 pleading standards. 8 PepsiCo, Inc., 238 F. Supp 2d at 1175; Danning v. Lavine, 572 F.2d 1386 , 1388–89 (9th 9 Cir. 1978). These two factors should be considered in tandem and are interrelated. Dr. 10 JKL Ltd. v. HPC IT Educ. Ctr., 749 F. Supp. 2d 1038, 1048 (N.D. Cal. 2010). Plaintiff 11 brings claims under the FLSA and state-law claims under the AMWA and AWA. 12 1. FLSA Claims 13 Congress enacted the FLSA “to protect all covered workers from substandard 14 wages and oppressive working hours.” Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys. Inc., [15] 450 U.S. 728, 739 (1981). The FLSA requires employers to pay non-exempt workers a 16 minimum wage for any time spent working during the workweek. 29 U.S.C. § 206 (a). 17 Also, among the FLSA's central provisions is its requirement that employers pay non18 exempted workers at one and a half times the regular rate for any time worked in excess 19 of forty hours in a single week. 29 U.S.C. § 207 ; see Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, [20] 136 S. Ct. 1036, 1042 (2016). In order to state a claim for unpaid wages under the FLSA, 21 a Plaintiff must “allege facts showing that there was a given week in which he was 22 entitled to but denied minimum wages [.]” Landers v. Quality Commc'ns, Inc., 771 F.3d 23 638, 645 (9th Cir. 2014). 24 As mentioned, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to pay them for several 25 workweeks and for overtime pay as required under the FLSA. (Doc. 1 at 21–22). 26 Plaintiff Ines Ruiz Rios alleges that she worked approximately 70 hours a week during 27 the course of her employment but was never paid overtime. (Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 42–45). The 28 same is true for Plaintiff Reynaldo Hidalgo Diaz who also worked approximately 70 1 hours a week but was paid a flat rate regardless of how many hours he worked. (Doc. 1 2 at ¶¶ 58–61). The pattern was repeated for Plaintiffs Lazaro Yunsier Lemus Cedeno, 3 Omar Mejia, Gerardo Meza, Walter Ulises Espinoza Rodriguez, Alcides Rodriguez 4 Rugama, and Amara Abigail Terrazas Raya. (Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 66–67, 74–75, 82–83, 90–91, 5 98–99, 106–107). Because the well-pled factual allegations of the complaint are deemed 6 true upon default, Plaintiffs have shown that Defendants violated the FLSA. See Geddes 7 v. United Fin. Grp., 559 F.2d 557 , 560 (9th Cir. 1977) (stating that allegations in the 8 complaint, except those related to damages, are taken as true for a default). 9 2. AMWA Claims 10 The AMWA provides the minimum wage under Arizona law. A.R.S. § 23-363. 11 The AMWA mandates that “Any employer who fails to pay the wages ... required ... shall 12 be required to pay the employee the balance of the wages ... owed, including interest 13 thereon, and an additional amount equal to twice the underpaid wages[.]” A.R.S. § 2314 364. Like the FLSA, the AMWA defines an “employee” as “any person who is or was 15 employed by an employer[.]” A.R.S. § 23-362(A). The AMWA defines “employer” to 16 “include[ ] any corporation, proprietorship, partnership, joint venture, limited liability 17 company, trust, association, political subdivision of the state, individual or other entity 18 acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee[.]” 19 A.R.S. § 23-362(B). For purposes of the AMWA, the facts alleged by Plaintiffs show 20 that they were employed by Defendants and worked for Defendants without pay. (Doc. 1 21 at ¶¶ 54, 62, 70, 78, 86, 94, 102, 110). Accepting the allegations in the Complaint as 22 true, the Court finds that Defendants violated the AMWA. 23 3. AMA Claims 24 The AWA requires “[e]ach employer, on each of the regular paydays, shall pay to 25 the employees all wages due to the employees up to that date[.]” A.R.S. § 23-351(C). The 26 AWA further provides that any employer who “fails to pay wages due any employee” 27 may be subject to recovery by the employee of “an amount that is treble the amount of 28 the unpaid wages.” A.R.S. § 23-355(A). Similar to the FLSA and AMWA, the AWA 1 defines “employee” as “any person who performs services for an employer under a 2 contract of employment either made in this state or to be performed wholly or partly 3 within this state.” A.R.S. § 23-350(2). The AWA defines “employer” to mean “any 4 individual, partnership, association, joint stock company, trust or corporation, the 5 administrator or executor of the estate of a deceased individual or the receiver, trustee or 6 successor of any of such persons employing any person.” A.R.S. § 23-350(3). “This 7 statutory definition does not ... authorize individual liability against the owners, officers, 8 and directors of a corporate employer in a case where the claim is for the employer's 9 wholesale failure to pay wages.” Rosen v. Fasttrak Foods LLC, No. CV-19-05292-PHX10 DWL, 2021 WL 2981590 , at *5 (D. Ariz. July 15, 2021). As with the AMWA, Plaintiffs 11 have plausibly pled a violation under the AMA. (Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 54, 62, 70, 78, 86, 94, 102, 12 110). 13 C. The Amount of Money at Stake 14 Under the fourth Eitel factor, the Court considers the amount of money at stake in 15 relation to the seriousness of the defendant's conduct. Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471–72. “If the 16 sum of money at stake is completely disproportionate or inappropriate, default judgment 17 is disfavored.” Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Streeter, 438 F. Supp. 2d 1065 , 1071 18 (D. Ariz. 2006). Here, Plaintiffs seek damages in reference to Defendants’ violations of 19 state and federal law under the FLSA, AMWA, and AMA are serious enough to justify 20 default judgment. 21 D. Possible Dispute Concerning Material Facts 22 The fifth Eitel factor contemplates the possibility of a dispute concerning material 23 facts. Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471. Upon entry of default “the factual allegations of the 24 complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages, will be taken as true.” 25 Televideo Systems, Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915 , 917–18 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations 26 omitted). The Defendants have had more than an ample amount of time to defend against 27 Plaintiffs’ claims yet have failed to do so. There are no disputed issues of material fact 28 which would preclude default judgment. PepsiCo, 238 F. Supp. 2d at 1177 . This factor 1 weighs in favor of default judgment. 2 E. Whether Default was Due to Excusable Neglect 3 The sixth Eitel factor considers whether the default was due to excusable neglect. 4 Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471. Plaintiff properly served Defendants with the summons and 5 complaint. (Docs. 9,10, 11, and 12). It therefore is unlikely that Defendants’ failure to 6 answer and the resulting default were due to excusable neglect. Gemmel v. Systemhouse, 7 Inc., No. CIV 04-187-TUC-CKJ, 2008 WL 65604 , at *5 (D. Ariz. Jan. 3, 2008). This 8 Eitel factor also weighs in favor of default judgment. 9 F. The Policy Favoring a Decision on the Merits 10 The last factor usually weighs against default judgment given that cases “should 11 be decided on their merits whenever reasonably possible.” Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1472. The 12 mere existence of Rule 55(b), however, “indicates that this preference, standing alone, is 13 not dispositive.” PepsiCo, 238 F. Supp. 2d at 1177 . Rule 55(a), Federal Rules of Civil 14 Procedure, specifically contemplates “termination of a case before hearing the merits . . . 15 whenever a defendant fails to defend an action.” PepsiCo, Inc. v. California Security 16 Cans, 238 F.Supp.2d 1172, 1177 (C.D. Cal. 2002). Thus, despite the strong public policy 17 in favor of decisions on the merits, cases such as this make “a decision on the merits 18 impractical, if not impossible.” Id. The Court finds that this factor does not outweigh the 19 other Eitel factors discussed above. See Tolano v. El Rio Bakery, No. CV-18-0012520 TUC-RM, 2019 WL 6464748 , at *6 (D. Ariz. Dec. 2, 2019). 21 III. Conclusion 22 After consideration of the Eitel factors, the Court finds it appropriate to grant 23 default judgment. 24 IV. Damages 25 Unlike the factual allegations of the Complaint, allegations regarding the amount 26 of damages are not taken as true. Geddes v. United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d 557 , 560 (9th 27 Cir. 1977). “A default judgment may be entered without a hearing on damages when the 28 amount claimed is capable of ascertainment from definite figures contained in the 1 documentary evidence or in detailed affidavits.” Taylor Made Golf Co. v. Carsten Sports, 2 Ltd., 175 F.R.D. 658, 661 (S.D. Cal. 1997) (citing Dundee Cement Co. v. Howard Pipe & 3 Concrete Prods., Inc., 722 F.2d 1319, 1323 (7th Cir. 1983)). Plaintiff bears the burden of 4 “proving up” damages; however, “if the facts necessary to determine damages are not 5 contained in the complaint, or are legally insufficient, they will not be established by 6 default.” Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Castworld Prod., Inc., 219 F.R.D. 494, 498 (C.D. 7 Cal. 2003 ) (citing Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of N. America, 980 F.2d 1261, 1267 (9th Cir. 8 1992)). Further, courts in the District of Arizona routinely conclude that plaintiffs 9 bringing FLSA, AMWA, and AWA claims are “entitled only to the maximum amount of 10 damages under either the state or federal statutes.” Xalamihua v. GGC Legacy Janitorial 11 Servs. LLC, 2023 WL 8891393 , *6 (D. Ariz. 2023). Cf. Gen. Tel. Co. of the Nw. v. Equal 12 Emp. Opportunity Comm’n, 446 U.S. 318, 333 (1980) (“[C]ourts can and should preclude 13 double recovery by an individual.”). 14 A. FLSA Damages 15 All Plaintiffs bring claims for damages under the FLSA, AMWA, and the AWA. 16 (Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 139, 147, 152, 156). 17 The FLSA requires employers to pay minimum wages to nonexempt, i.e., hourly 18 employees. Sloan v. Am. Brain Tumor Ass’n, 901 F.3d 891, 894 (7th Cir. 2018) (citing 19 29 U.S.C. §§ 206–07). The FLSA’s minimum wage provision entitles employees to a 20 wage “not less than $7.25 an hour.” 29 U.S.C. § 206 (a). To state a plausible minimum 21 wage claim under the FLSA, a plaintiff must allege that his weekly wages fall below the 22 statutory minimum. Heck v. Heavenly Couture, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-0168-CAB-NLS, [23] 2017 WL 4476999 , at *4 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2017); see also Alvarez v. IBP, Inc., 339 F.3d 24 894, 914-15 (9th Cir. 2003) (cleaned up) (“We have approved approximated awards 25 where plaintiffs can establish, to an imperfect degree of certainty, that they have 26 performed work and have not been paid in accordance with the FLSA.”). 27 a. Plaintiff Ines Ruiz Rios 28 Plaintiff alleges that Defendants hired her to work as a crew supervisor from about 1 July 12, 2023, through about July 31, 2023. (Doc. 22 at 5). She alleges that she agreed 2 to work for $180.00 per day, regardless of how many hours she worked and that she 3 worked three weeks before Defendants terminated her employment. (Id.) Plaintiff 4 calculates that she worked approximately 70 hours per week, resulting in 90 total 5 overtime hours during the course of her three-week employment. (Id.) She says she was 6 not paid any overtime, nor was she paid at all during her final two weeks of employment. 7 During her final two work weeks, she worked six days a week, in what amounts to 140 8 hours total. With the federal minimum wage set at $7.25 an hour, and Plaintiff working 9 140 unpaid hours, that comes out to $1,105.00 (140 x $7.25). She also states that she 10 worked overtime because she worked 70 hours for each of the three weeks she worked 11 for Defendants. (Doc. 22 at 6). Her unpaid overtime damages are as follows: her 12 overtime rate would be $15.43 per hour, calculated by dividing $1,080 per week by 70. 13 One-half of her regular rate of pay is $7.72 per hour and if she worked 90 hours more 14 than the allotted 40 a week, she is owed $694.80 ($7.72 x 90). In total, her damages 15 under the FLSA come out to $1,709.80. Plaintiff has also asked this Court to grant her 16 liquidated damages under 29 U.S.C. § 216 (b).1 Doubling the amount of the FLSA 17 damages, results in Plaintiff being eligible to receive double the amount of $1,709.80, 18 which is $3,419.60. Plaintiff has adequately stated a claim under the FLSA, and she is 19 eligible to receive $3,419.60, which includes the liquidates damages allowed under the 20 statute as well. 21 b. Plaintiff Alba Garcia Herrera 22 Plaintiff alleges she worked the entire course of her three-week employment 23 without pay. (Doc. 22 at 7). She had agreed to work for Defendants as a crew member 24 from July 11, 2023, through about July 31, 2023, and her agreed upon rate was $120.00 25 per day, regardless of actual hours worked. (Id.) Plaintiff calculates that she worked 26 approximately 70 hours per week and 90 total overtime hours. (Id.) According to 27 Plaintiff, she did not receive overtime for the hours she worked in excess of the usual 4028 1 hour workweek. (Id.) Her total damages calculations for the FLSA are $2,146.20 ($7.25 2 x 210) for the hours during the three-week period that she worked without pay, in 3 addition to the overtime hours and overtime rate of pay (90 x $6.93). (Id.) Plaintiff has 4 adequately stated a claim under the FLSA, and she is eligible to receive $2,146.20. 5 Adding in liquidated damages as authorized by statute, she is eligible to receive 6 $4,292.40 ($2,146.20 x 2). (Doc. 22 at 22). 7 c. Plaintiff Reynaldo Hidaldo Diaz 8 Plaintiff alleges he worked for Defendants as a manual laborer from about April 1, 9 2023, through about July 31, 2023. (Doc. 22 at 8). He states he worked for 10 approximately six days a week and 70 hours each week during the course of his 11 employment, which lasted for about 17 workweeks. (Id.) His agreed upon daily rate was 12 $150.00 per day. (Id.) He states he was not paid any wages during his last two weeks and 13 that he worked approximately 510 hours of overtime, without overtime pay. (Id.) He 14 calculates his FLSA damages as $4,549.80 in total ($7.25 x 140), which comes out to 15 $1.105.00 plus the overtime wage calculation of 510 hours times $6.93, which comes out 16 to an additional $3, 534.30. (Id.) Doubling the amount of damages as authorized by 17 statute, Plaintiff is entitled to $9,098.60 for total FLSA damages. 18 d. Plaintiff Lazaro Yusnier Lemus Cedeno 19 Plaintiff alleges he worked for Defendants as a manual laborer from about July 12, 20 2023, through about July 31, 2023. (Doc. 22 at 10). He agreed to work for $150.00 per 21 day regardless of the amount of hours and he worked approximately six days per week. 22 (Id.) His workweek usually consisted of 70 hours per week, and he states he was not paid 23 any wages for three of his workweeks and no overtime pay for the 90 total overtime 24 hours. (Id.) His unpaid federal minimum wage is calculated as follows: $7.25 x 210, 25 which amounts to $1,522.50, plus an additional $623.70, totaling $2, 146.20. With 26 double damages allowed under the FLSA, the total that Plaintiff is entitled to is 27 $4,292.40. 28 / / / 1 e. Plaintiff Omar Mejia 2 Plaintiff asserts he worked for Defendants as a manual laborer from about 3 December 1, 2022, through July 31, 2023. (Doc. 22 at 11). He agreed to work for $1,000 4 per week, six days a week, 70 hours weekly, and did that for a total of 34 workweeks. 5 (Id.) Plaintiff also alleges that he worked a total of 1,020 overtime hours during the 6 course of his employment and was not paid for the overtime, or for his last two 7 workweeks with Defendants. (Id.) Plaintiff’s total FLSA damages come out to $8, 8 297.80. Of that amount, $1, 015 is for his last two workweeks without pay ($7.25 x 140 9 hours). The additional $7,282.80 is for the overtime he amassed during the course of his 10 employment ($7.14 x 1,020 hours). Doubling his damages, he is entitled to a total of 11 $16,595.60. 12 f. Plaintiff Gerardo Meza 13 Plaintiff asserts he worked for Defendants as a cleaning crew member from about 14 July 10, 2023, through July 31, 2023. (Doc. 22 at 13). He agreed to work for $120.00 15 per day, six days a week, 70 hours weekly, and did that for a total of three workweeks. 16 (Id.) Plaintiff also alleges that he worked a total of 90 overtime hours during the course of 17 his employment and was not paid for the overtime, or for his entire three workweeks with 18 Defendants. (Id.) Plaintiff’s total FLSA damages come out to $2,146.20. Of that 19 amount, $1,522.50 is for the three workweeks he worked without pay ($7.25 x 210 20 hours). The additional $623.70 is for the overtime he amassed during the course of his 21 employment ($6.93 x 90 hours). Doubling his damages, he is entitled to a total of 22 $4,292.40. 23 g. Plaintiff Walter Ulises Espinoza Rodriguez 24 Plaintiff asserts he worked for Defendants as a painter and manual laborer from 25 about June 1, 2023, through July 31, 2023. (Doc. 22 at 14). He agreed to work for 26 $15.00 per hour, approximately 60 hours weekly, and did that for a total of eight 27 workweeks. (Id.) Plaintiff also alleges that he worked a total of 160 overtime hours 28 during the course of his employment and was not paid for the overtime, or for his last 1 three workweeks with Defendants. (Id.) Plaintiff’s total FLSA damages come out to 2 $2,505.00. Of that amount, $1,305.00 is for the three workweeks he worked without pay 3 ($7.25 x 180 hours). The additional $1200.00 is for the overtime he amassed during the 4 course of his employment ($7.50 x 160 hours). Doubling his damages, he is entitled to a 5 total of $5,010.00. 6 h. Plaintiff Alcides Rodriguez Rugama 7 Plaintiff asserts he worked for Defendants as an electrician and manual laborer 8 from about April 1, 2023, through July 31, 2023. (Doc. 22 at 16). He agreed to work for 9 $17.00 per hour, approximately 60 hours weekly, and did that for a total of seventeen 10 workweeks. (Id.) Plaintiff also alleges that he worked a total of 340 overtime hours 11 during the course of his employment and was not paid for the overtime, or for his last two 12 workweeks with Defendants. (Id.) Plaintiff’s total FLSA damages come out to 13 $3,760.00. Of that amount, $870.00 is for the two workweeks he worked without pay 14 ($7.25 x 120 hours). The additional $2,890.00 is for the overtime he amassed during the 15 course of his employment ($8.50 x 340 hours). Doubling his damages, he is entitled to a 16 total of $7,520.00. 17 i. Plaintiff Amara Abigail Terrazas Raya 18 Plaintiff asserts she worked for Defendants as a cleaning crew member from about 19 July 9, 2023, through July 31, 2023. (Doc. 22 at 17). She agreed to work for $120.00 per 20 day, approximately 70 hours weekly, six days a week and did that for a total of three 21 workweeks. (Id.) Plaintiff also alleges that she worked a total of 90 overtime hours 22 during the course of her employment and was not paid for the overtime, or for the 23 entirety of the three workweeks she worked for Defendants. (Id.) Plaintiff’s total FLSA 24 damages come out to $2,146.20. Of that amount, $1,522.50 is for the three workweeks 25 she worked without pay ($7.25 x 210 hours). The additional $623.70 is for the overtime 26 she amassed during his employment ($6.93 x 90 hours). Doubling her damages, she is 27 entitled to a total of $4,292.40. 28 / / / 1 B. AMWA Damages 2 The AMWA is a state minimum wage statute that requires Arizona employees to 3 be paid no less than $12.00 per hour in addition to yearly cost of living adjustments, 4 beginning on or after January 1, 2021. A.R.S. § 23-363(B); Peralta v. Custom Image 5 Pros LLC, et al., No. CV-23-00358-PHX-JAT, 2023 WL 8455120 , at *3 (D. Ariz. 6 Dec. 6, 2023). To state claim under the AMWA, a plaintiff must allege that he was not 7 paid the applicable minimum wage for the hours he worked. Coe v. Hirsch, et al., No. 8 CV-21-00478-PHX-SMM (MTM), 2021 WL 5634798 , at *2 (D. Ariz. Dec. 1, 2021). 9 a. Plaintiff Ines Ruiz Rios 10 Plaintiff alleges that she worked for two weeks without pay. (Doc. 22 at 5–6). The 11 Arizona minimum wage in 2023 was $13.85 an hour and accounting for the 140 hours 12 she worked unpaid, the total amount owed to her under the AMWA is $1,939.00 (140 x 13 $13.85). Plaintiff also presses for treble damages as authorized under statute, which 14 would bring her total damages to $5,817.00 ($1,939.00 x 3). The Plaintiff has established 15 a claim under AMWA and has shown that she is entitled to a $5,817.00 damage award 16 under the AMWA. 17 b. Plaintiff Alba Garcia Herrera 18 Plaintiff alleges that she worked for three weeks without pay. (Doc. 22 at 7). The 19 Arizona minimum wage in 2023 was $13.85 an hour and accounting for the 210 hours 20 she worked unpaid, the total amount owed to her under the AMWA is $2,908.50 (210 x 21 $13.85). Plaintiff also presses for treble damages as authorized under statute, which 22 would bring her total damages to $8,724.00 ($2,908 x 3). The Plaintiff has established a 23 claim under AMWA and has shown that she is entitled to a $8,725.50 damage award 24 under the AMWA. 25 c. Plaintiff Reynaldo Hidaldo Diaz 26 Plaintiff alleges that he worked for two weeks without pay. (Doc. 22 at 8). The 27 Arizona minimum wage in 2023 was $13.85 an hour and accounting for the 140 hours 28 she worked unpaid, the total amount owed to him under the AMWA is $1,939.00 (140 x 1 $13.85). Plaintiff also presses for treble damages as authorized under statute, which 2 would bring his total damages to $5,817.00 ($1,939.00 x 3). The Plaintiff has established 3 a claim under AMWA and has shown that he is entitled to a $5,817.00 damage award 4 under the AMWA. 5 d. Plaintiff Lazaro Yusnier Lemus Cedeno 6 Plaintiff alleges that he worked for three weeks without pay. (Doc. 22 at 10). The 7 Arizona minimum wage in 2023 was $13.85 an hour and accounting for the 210 hours he 8 worked unpaid, the total amount owed to him under the AMWA is $2,908.50 (210 x 9 $13.85). Plaintiff also presses for treble damages as authorized under statute, which 10 would bring his total damages to $8,725.50 ($2,908.50 x 3). The Plaintiff has established 11 a claim under AMWA and has shown that he is entitled to a $8,725.50 damage award 12 under the AMWA. 13 e. Plaintiff Omar Mejia 14 Plaintiff alleges that he worked for two weeks without pay. (Doc. 22 at 12). The 15 Arizona minimum wage in 2023 was $13.85 an hour and accounting for the 210 hours he 16 worked unpaid, the total amount owed to him under the AMWA is $1,939.00 (210 x 17 $13.85). Plaintiff also presses for treble damages as authorized under statute, which 18 would bring his total damages to $5,817.00 ($1,939.00 x 3). The Plaintiff has established 19 a claim under AMWA and has shown that he is entitled to a $5,817.00 damage award 20 under the AMWA. 21 f. Plaintiff Gerardo Meza 22 Plaintiff alleges that he worked for three weeks without pay. (Doc. 22 at 12). The 23 Arizona minimum wage in 2023 was $13.85 an hour and accounting for the 210 hours he 24 worked unpaid, the total amount owed to him under the AMWA is $2,908.50 (210 x 25 $13.85). Plaintiff also presses for treble damages as authorized under statute, which 26 would bring his total damages to $8,725.50 ($2,908.50 x 3). The Plaintiff has established 27 a claim under AMWA and has shown that he is entitled to a $8,725.50 damage award 28 under the AMWA. 1 g. Plaintiff Walter Ulises Espinoza Rodriguez 2 Plaintiff alleges that he worked for three weeks without pay. (Doc. 22 at 14). The 3 Arizona minimum wage in 2023 was $13.85 an hour and accounting for the 180 hours he 4 worked unpaid, the total amount owed to him under the AMWA is $2,493.00 (180 x 5 $13.85). Plaintiff also presses for treble damages as authorized under statute, which 6 would bring his total damages to $7,479.00 ($2,493.00 x 3). The Plaintiff has established 7 a claim under AMWA and has shown that he is entitled to a $7,479.00 damage award 8 under the AMWA. 9 h. Plaintiff Alcides Rodriguez Rugama 10 Plaintiff alleges that he worked for two weeks without pay. (Doc. 22 at 16). The 11 Arizona minimum wage in 2023 was $13.85 an hour and accounting for the 120 hours he 12 worked unpaid, the total amount owed to him under the AMWA is $1,622.00 (120 x 13 $13.85). Plaintiff also presses for treble damages as authorized under statute, which 14 would bring his total damages to $4,986.00 ($1,622 x 3). The Plaintiff has established a 15 claim under AMWA and has shown that he is entitled to a $4,986.00 damage award 16 under the AMWA. 17 i. Plaintiff Amara Abigail Terrazas Raya 18 Plaintiff alleges that she worked for three weeks without pay. (Doc. 22 at 17). 19 The Arizona minimum wage in 2023 was $13.85 an hour and accounting for the 210 20 hours she worked unpaid, the total amount owed to her under the AMWA is $2,908.50 21 (210 x $13.85). Plaintiff also presses for treble damages as authorized under statute, 22 which would bring his total damages to $8,725.50 ($2,908.50 x 3). The Plaintiff has 23 established a claim under AMWA and has shown that he is entitled to a $8,725.50 24 damage award under the AMWA. 25 C. AWA Damages 26 The AWA requires that employees in Arizona receive their wages in a timely 27 fashion. A.R.S. § 23-351. To bring an AWA claim, a plaintiff must state that his 28 employer failed to pay wages within a specific time. Frey v. Allstate L. Firm PC, No. 1 CV-22-01053-PHX-DJH, 2023 WL 5590319 , at *3 (D. Ariz. Aug. 29, 2023). The term 2 “employer” is defined more narrowly under the AWA than it is under the FLSA or the 3 AMWA. Rosen v. Fasttrak Foods LLC, No. CV-19-05292-PHX-DWL, 2021 WL 4 2981590, at *5 (D. Ariz. July 15, 2021). An employer is defined as “any individual, 5 partnership, association, joint stock company, trust or corporation, the administrator or 6 executor of the estate of a deceased individual or the receiver, trustee or successor of any 7 of such persons employing any person.” A.R.S. § 23-350(3). This definition does not 8 authorize individual liability against the owners, officers, or directors of a corporate 9 employer in a case where the claim is for the employer's wholesale failure to pay wages. 10 Rosen, 2021 WL 2981590 , at *5. Further, trebling is discretionary rather than mandatory 11 under the AWA. Swanson v. Image Bank, Inc., 77 P.3d 439, 443 (Ariz. 2003) (“Under 12 the plain language of the statute, the award of treble damages for the bad-faith 13 withholding of wages is discretionary with the court.”); Crum v. Maricopa Cnty., 950 14 P.2d 171 , 173 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). See also Rosen v. Fasttrak Foods LLC, 2021 WL 15 2981590, *4 (D. Ariz. 2021) (“The Court possesses wide discretion in determining 16 whether to award treble damages under § 23-355.”). Under the AWA, “[t]he treble 17 damage remedy is a punitive measure that is warranted when employers seek to delay 18 payment without reasonable justification or to defraud employees of wages earned.” 19 Swanson v. Image Bank, Inc., 43 P.3d 174, 183 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002), aff’d in part, 20 vacated in part, 77 P.3d 439 (cleaned up). “Although imposition of treble damages under 21 § 23-355 is permissive, not mandatory, that element of discretion merely reflects that 22 such an award may be inappropriate when a wage dispute involves a valid close question 23 of law or fact which should properly be decided by the courts or when failure to pay 24 wages was due to inadvertent mistake.” Id. at 184 (cleaned up). 25 Here, when all reasonable inferences are resolved in Plaintiffs’ favor, the 26 declarations of the Plaintiffs indicate that the withholding of wages was done 27 unreasonably and was not “based upon a good-faith dispute.” Patton v. Mohave Cnty., [28] 741 P.2d 301, 305 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987) (holding that an employer may withhold wages 1 if there is a “good-faith dispute”). Therefore, the Court concludes that trebling is 2 appropriate. Further, while Lux Interior and Renovation LLC is properly characterized as 3 an employer under the relevant provision of the AWA, the individually named defendants 4 are not. See A.R.S. § 23-350(2) (resulting in a narrow definition of employer that does 5 not apply to individuals acting in the corporation’s interests). Therefore, all AWA 6 damages apply only to Lux Interior and Renovation LLC, and not the individually named 7 Defendants. 8 a. Plaintiff Ines Ruiz Rios 9 Plaintiff brings an AWA claim against Lux Interior and Renovation LLC. (Doc. 1 10 at ¶ 46).2 Plaintiff alleges that her unpaid wages under the AWA are $2, 160.00. 11 (Doc. 22 at 5–6). Her regular rate of pay was $180.00 per day and she was not paid for 12 12 days of work, bringing her damages claim under the AWA to $2,160.00 ($180.00 x 12). 13 (Id. at 6). The Plaintiff has established a claim under the AWA and shown she is entitled 14 to the $2,160.00, but only against Lux Interior and Renovation LLC and not the 15 individually named defendants. Trebling her damages, she is entitled to a total damages 16 award of $6,480.00, against Lux Interior and Renovation LLC only. 17 b. Plaintiff Alba Garcia Herrera 18 Plaintiff brings an AWA claim against Lux Interior and Renovation LLC. 19 (Doc. 1 at ¶ 54). Plaintiff alleges that her unpaid wages under the AWA are $2,160.00. 20 (Doc. 22 at 7–8). Her regular rate of pay was $120.00 per day and she was not paid for 21 18 days of work, bringing her damages claim under the AWA to $2,160.00 ($120 x 18). 22 (Id. at 8). The Plaintiff has established a claim under the AWA and shown she is entitled 23 to the $2,160.00. Trebling her damages, he is entitled to a total damages award of 24 $6,480.00, against Lux Interior and Renovation LLC only. 25 / / / [26] 2 Each Plaintiff also brings an AWA claim against Katisleidys Martinez and John Doe 27 Martinez, Julia Martinez and John Doe Martinez II. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 46). However, the definition of employer under the AWA, precludes liability for individual Defendants. 28 A.R.S. § 23-350(3). Therefore, liability under the AWA can only be found against Defendant Lux Interior and Renovation LLC. 1 c. Plaintiff Reynaldo Hidalgo Diaz 2 Plaintiff brings an AWA claim against Lux Interior and Renovation LLC. (Doc. 1 3 at ¶ 62). Plaintiff alleges that his unpaid wages under the AWA are $1,800.00. (Doc. 22 4 at 9). His regular rate of pay was $150.00 per day and he was not paid for 12 days of 5 work, bringing his damages claim under the AWA to $1,800.00 ($150 x 12). (Id. at 6). 6 The Plaintiff has established a claim under the AWA and shown he is entitled to the 7 $1,800.00. Trebling his damages, he is entitled to a total damages award of $5,400.00, 8 against Lux Interior and Renovation LLC only. 9 d. Plaintiff Lazaro Yusner Lemus Cedeno 10 Plaintiff brings an AWA claim against Lux Interior and Renovation LLC. (Doc. 1 11 at ¶ 70). Plaintiff alleges that his unpaid wages under the AWA are $2,700.00. 12 (Doc. 22 at 11). His regular rate of pay was $150.00 per day and he was not paid for 18 13 days of work, bringing his damages claim under the AWA to $2,700.00 ($150 x 18). 14 (Id.) The Plaintiff has established a claim under the AWA and shown he is entitled to the 15 $2,700.00. Trebling his damages, he is entitled to a total damages award of $8,100.00, 16 against Lux Interior and Renovation LLC only. 17 e. Plaintiff Omar Mejia 18 Plaintiff brings an AWA claim against Lux Interior and Renovation LLC. (Doc. 1 19 at ¶ 78). Plaintiff alleges that his unpaid wages under the AWA are $2,000.00. (Doc. 22 20 at 12). His regular rate of pay was $1,000 per week and he was not paid fortwo weeks of 21 work, bringing his damages claim under the AWA to $2,000.00 ($1,000.00 x 2). (Id.) 22 The Plaintiff has established a claim under the AWA and shown he is entitled to the 23 $2,000.00. Trebling his damages, he is entitled to a total damages award of $6,000.00 24 against Lux Interior and Renovation LLC only. 25 f. Plaintiff Gerardo Meza 26 Plaintiff brings an AWA claim against Lux Interior and Renovation LLC. (Doc. 1 27 at ¶ 86) Plaintiff alleges that his unpaid wages under the AWA are $2,160.003 (Doc. 22 at 28 3 Plaintiff Gerardo Meza cites an incorrect figure for his AWA damages on a chart on page 14 of the default judgment, but otherwise refers to the correct figure on page 13 and 1 13). His regular rate of pay was $120.00 per day and he was not paid for 18 days of 2 work, bringing his damages claim under the AWA to $2,160.00 ($120.00 x 18). (Id.) The 3 Plaintiff has established a claim under the AWA and shown he is entitled to the 4 $2,160.00. Trebling his damages, he is entitled to a total damages award of $6,480.00, 5 against Lux Interior and Renovation LLC only. 6 g. Plaintiff Walter Ulises Espinoza Rodriguez 7 Plaintiff brings an AWA claim against Lux Interior and Renovation LLC. (Doc. 1 8 at ¶ 94). The Defendants are properly characterized as employers under the relevant 9 provision of the AWA. Plaintiff alleges that his unpaid wages under the AWA are 10 $2,700.00. (Doc. 22 at 15). His regular rate of pay was $15 per hour, and he was not paid 11 for180 hours of work, bringing his damages claim under the AWA to $2,700.00 ($15.00 12 x 180). (Id.) The Plaintiff has established a claim under the AWA and shown he is 13 entitled to the $2,700.00. Trebling his damages, he is entitled to a total damages award of 14 $8,100.00, against Lux Interior and Renovation LLC only. 15 h. Plaintiff Alcides Rodriguez Rugama 16 Plaintiff brings an AWA claim against Lux Interior and Renovation LLC. (Doc. 1 17 at ¶ 102). Plaintiff alleges that his unpaid wages under the AWA are $2,040.00. (Doc. 22 18 at 17). His regular rate of pay was $17.00 per hour and he was not paid for 120 hours of 19 work, bringing his damages claim under the AWA to $2,040.00 ($17.00 x 120). (Id.) The 20 Plaintiff has established a claim under the AWA and shown he is entitled to the 21 $2,040.00. Trebling his damages, he is entitled to a total damages award of $6,120.00,4 22 against Lux Interior and Renovation LLC only. 23 g. Plaintiff Amara Abigail Terrazas Raya 24 Plaintiff brings an AWA claim against Lux Interior and Renovation LLC. (Doc. 1 25 at ¶ 110). Plaintiff alleges that her unpaid wages under the AWA are $2,160.00. [26] again on page 23. 27 4 Plaintiff lists the incorrect amount of damages on page 23 of the Motion for Entry of Default. (Doc. 22 at 23). While the total treble damages listed for the AWA are correct at 28 $6,120.00, the figure to be trebled is listed as $1,800.00 instead the correct dollar amount of $2,040.00. (Id. at 23). 1 (Doc. 22 at 18). Her regular rate of pay was $120.00 per day and he was not paid for 18 2 days of work, bringing her damages claim under the AWA to $2,160.00 ($120.00 x 18). 3 (Id.) The Plaintiff has established a claim under the AWA and shown she is entitled to the 4 $2,160.00. Trebling her damages, she is entitled to a total damages award of $6,480.00, 5 against Lux Interior and Renovation LLC only. 6 D. Total Damages Award for Each Plaintiff 7 Courts in the District of Arizona routinely conclude that plaintiffs bringing AWA, 8 AMWA, and FLSA claims are “entitled only to the maximum amount of damages under 9 either the state or federal statutes.” Xalamihua v. GGC Legacy Janitorial Servs. LLC, [10] 2023 WL 8891393 , *6 (D. Ariz. 2023). Cf. Gen. Tel. Co. of the Nw. v. Equal Emp. 11 Opportunity Comm'n, 446 U.S. 318, 333 (1980) (“[C]ourts can and should preclude 12 double recovery by an individual”); see also Acosta v. Pindernation Holdings LLC, 2023 13 WL 3951222 , at *4–5 (D. Ariz. Mar. 1, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, [14] 2023 WL 3951211 (D. Ariz. Mar. 23, 2023) (finding no basis to authorize stacked awards 15 under the FLSA, AMWA, and AWA). 16 To summarize the Court’s findings above, all Plaintiffs have shown that all 17 defaulting Defendants have collectively violated the FLSA and AMWA, and Defendant 18 Lux Interior and Renovation LLC has violated the AWA. Keeping in mind that the larger 19 statutory award engulfs the smaller ones, Plaintiffs ask for a total damages award of 20 $103,612.40. (Doc. 22 at 24). Of that amount, $101,011.40 will be awarded against all 21 Defendants: Lux Interior and Renovation LLC, Katiesleidys Martinez and John Doe 22 Martinez, and Julia Martinez and Jon Doe Martinez II, jointly and severally. The 23 remaining $2,061.00 will be awarded against Defendant Lux Interior and Renovation 24 LLC alone. The breakdown by individual Plaintiffs is as follows: 25 Plaintiff Ines Ruiz Rios 26 The total amount awarded of $7,869.60 under the AWA and the overtime 27 provisions of the FLSA, for which Defendant Lux Interior and Renovation LLC will be 28 fully liable. A.R.S. § 23-350; 29 U.S.C. § 207 (a). Of that amount, all Defendants will be 1 jointly and severally liable for $7,206.60 (the larger statutory award is $5,817.00 under 2 the AMWA, plus the $1,389.60 overtime wages owed under the FLSA). 3 Plaintiff Alba Garcia Herrera 4 The total amount awarded of $9,972.90 under the AMWA and the overtime 5 provisions of the FLSA, for which Defendant Lux Interior and Renovation LLC will be 6 fully liable. A.R.S. § 23-363; 29 U.S.C. § 207 (a). Of that amount, all Defendants will be 7 jointly and severally liable for $9,972.90 (the larger statutory award is $8,725.50 under 8 the AMWA, plus the $1,247.40 overtime wages owed under the FLSA). 9 Plaintiff Reynaldo Hidalgo Diaz 10 The total amount awarded of $12,885.60 under the AMWA and the overtime 11 provisions of the FLSA, for which Defendant Lux Interior and Renovation LLC will be 12 fully liable. A.R.S. § 23-363; 29 U.S.C. § 207 (a). Of that amount, all Defendants will be 13 jointly and severally liable for $12,885.60 (the larger statutory award is $5,817.00 under 14 the AMWA, plus the $7,068.60 overtime wages owed under the FLSA). 15 Plaintiff Lazaro Yusnier Lemus Cedeno 16 The total amount awarded of $9,972.90 under the AMWA and the overtime 17 provisions of the FLSA, for which Defendant Lux Interior and Renovation LLC will be 18 fully liable. A.R.S. § 23-363; 29 U.S.C. § 207 (a). Of that amount, all Defendants will be 19 jointly and severally liable for $9,972.90 (the larger statutory award is $8,725.50 under 20 the AMWA, plus the $1,247.40 overtime wages owed under the FLSA). 21 Plaintiff Omar Mejia 22 The total amount awarded of $20,565.60 under the AWA and the overtime 23 provisions of the FLSA, for which Defendant Lux Interior and Renovation LLC will be 24 fully liable. A.R.S. § 23-350; 29 U.S.C. § 207 (a). Of that amount, all Defendants will be 25 jointly and severally liable for $20,382.60 (the larger statutory award is $5,817.00 under 26 the AMWA, plus the $14,565.00 overtime wages owed under the FLSA). 27 Plaintiff Gerardo Meza 28 The total amount awarded of $9,972.90 under the AMWA and the overtime 1 provisions of the FLSA, for which Defendant Lux Interior and Renovation LLC will be 2 fully liable. A.R.S. § 23-363; 29 U.S.C. § 207 (a). Of that amount, all Defendants will be 3 jointly and severally liable for $9,972.90 (the larger statutory award is $8,725.50 under 4 the AMWA, plus the $1,247.40 overtime wages owed under the FLSA). 5 Plaintiff Walter Ulises Espinoza Rodriguez 6 The total amount awarded of $10,500.00 under the AWA and the overtime 7 provisions of the FLSA, for which Defendant Lux Interior and Renovation LLC will be 8 fully liable. A.R.S. § 23-350; 29 U.S.C. § 207 (a). Of that amount, all Defendants will be 9 jointly and severally liable for $9,879.00 (the larger statutory award is $7,479.00 under 10 the AMWA, plus the $2,400.00 overtime wages owed under the FLSA). 11 Plaintiff Alcides Rodriguez Rugama 12 The total amount awarded of $11,900.00 under the AWA and the overtime 13 provisions of the FLSA, for which Defendant Lux Interior and Renovation LLC will be 14 fully liable. A.R.S. § 23-350; 29 U.S.C. § 207 (a). Of that amount, all Defendants will be 15 jointly and severally liable for $10,766.00 (the larger statutory award is $4,986.00 under 16 the AMWA, plus the $5,780.00 overtime wages owed under the FLSA). 17 Plaintiff Amara Abigail Terrazas Raya 18 The total amount awarded of $9,972.90 under the AMWA and the overtime 19 provisions of the FLSA, for which Defendant Lux Interior and Renovation LLC will be 20 fully liable. A.R.S. § 23-363; 29 U.S.C. § 207 (a). Of that amount, all Defendants will be 21 jointly and severally liable for $9,972.90 (the larger statutory award is $8,725.00 under 22 the AMWA, plus the $1,247.40 overtime wages owed under the FLSA). 23 V. Conclusion 24 The Court concludes that the damages requested by Plaintiffs are provided for by 25 statute and adequately supported by the calculations in their Motion for Default Judgment 26 and supporting affidavit. Plaintiffs’ calculations are also consistent with the Court's 27 finding that all Defaulting Defendants can be held joint and severally liable under the 28 FLSA and AMWA, but only Defendant Lux Interior and Renovation LLC can be held 1|| liable under the AWA. See supra Section IV.C. So, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ 2|| requested damages in the amount of $101,612.40 against all Defendants jointly and severally and an additional $2,601.00 against Defendant Lux Interior and Renovation LLC only. The Court will also award post-judgment interest and allow Plaintiff to seek 5 || an award of attorneys’ fees in accordance with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 54.2. 6 Accordingly, 7 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Default Judgment (Doc. 22) || is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to enter judgment as follows: || judgment in favor of Plaintiffs in the amount of $2,601.00 against Defendant Lux Interior and Renovation LLC; and judgment in favor of Plaintiffs in the amount of $103,612.40 against all five Defendants Lux Interior and Renovation LLC, Katisleidys Martinez, and 12 || John Doe Martinez, Julia Martinez, and John Doe Martinez II, jointly and severally as set 13 || forth in this Order. These amounts shall be subject to post-judgment interest at the applicable federal rate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961 (a). 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that that Plaintiffs may file a motion for costs and attorneys’ fees in accordance with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 54.2 within fourteen || days of the entry of this Order. 18 IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that this case shall be closed. 19 Dated this 20th day of March, 2025. [20] 21 5 ip Gum □□ 22 norable’Dian¢g4. Hurietewa 3 United States District Judge [28] -22-