Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Garcia v. H & Z Foods, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois

June 10, 2015

Mario Garcia, Plaintiff,
v.
H & Z Foods, Inc., d/b/a Save A Lot, and Issa Zayyad, Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

RONALD A. GUZMN, District Judge.

H&Z Foods, Inc. d/b/a Save A Lot and Issa Zayyad move to vacate the default judgment entered against them. For the reasons stated herein, the motion [26] is granted.

STATEMENT

Mario Garcia ("Plaintiff") filed this action on July 3, 2014 claiming violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL") for failure to pay him the proper overtime rate for weeks he worked over forty hours. Defendants deny that Plaintiff worked overtime.

The docket reflects a return of service indicating that a process server effectuated service on Issa Zayyad on September 13, 2014 by giving a copy of the complaint and summons to Zayyad's wife, Nadia, at 16320 Mark Lane, Tinley Park, Illinois. (Dkt. # 12.) According to the return of service, the process server "confirmed that both Issa Zayyad and Nadia Zayyad live there." ( Id .) On October 21, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff's oral motion to serve H&Z by mail and through the Secretary of State, which he did. Neither of the defendants timely appeared or answered.

On December 11, 2014, the Court entered default judgment against Defendants and at a December 17, 2014 prove-up hearing, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $46, 053.20. (Dkt. # 23.) On January 13, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which states that:

(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(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 (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), 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.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A party seeking to vacate a default judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) must show good cause for the default, quick action to correct it, and a meritorious defense to the complaint. Cracco v. Vitran Exp., Inc., 559 F.3d 625, 630-31 (7th Cir. 2009). Here, the Court finds Defendants acted ...


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.