Chaliha v. Power Connections LLC et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Pierre Chaliha,
Plaintiff,
v.
Power Connections LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-01438-PHX-KML
ORDER
Plaintiff Pierre Chaliha filed this suit to recover unpaid wages. (Doc. 1.) Defendants
were served but did not appear and their defaults were entered. (Docs. 6-9, 11-13, 15, 16.)
Plaintiff now seeks default judgment. (Doc. 12.)
The court must consider seven factors when deciding whether to enter default
judgment. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). 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 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 Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on
the merits.
Id. These factors establish default judgment is appropriate.
1. Possibility of Prejudice
The first factor regarding the possibility of prejudice to plaintiff supports entry of
default judgment because if “default judgment is not granted, plaintiff[] will likely be
without other recourse for recovery.” PepsiCo, Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 238 F. Supp. 2d
Case 2:25-cv-01438-KML Document 22 Filed 04/21/26 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1172, 1177 (C.D. Cal. 2002).
2. Merits of the Claims and Sufficiency of the Complaint
The second and third factors require assessing the merits of plaintiff’s claims and
the sufficiency of his complaint. These factors “are often analyzed together and require
courts to consider whether a plaintiff has state[d] a claim on which [he] may recover.”
Vietnam Reform Party v. Viet Tan - Vietnam Reform Party, 416 F. Supp. 3d 948, 962 (N.D.
Cal. 2019).
Defendants Power Connections LLC and Power Connections Consulting LLC are
limited liability companies in the solar power industry. Those companies are owned and
operated by defendants Adam Allen, Jessica Allen, Morgan Allen, and John Doe Allen.
(Doc. 1 at 4.) Plaintiff worked for defendants as an “appointment setter from approximately
April 16, 2025, through approximately April 24, 2025.” (Doc. 21-1 at 3.) Plaintiff’s rate of
pay was $100 per shift, plus $50 per appointment he set. (Doc. 21- at 3.) Over the course
of working for defendants, plaintiff worked a total of six shifts and set 16 appointments.
He estimates he worked a total of 40 hours. Based on his promised rate of pay, plaintiff
should have been paid $600 for the six shifts plus $800 for the 16 appointments, for a total
of $1,400. Because defendants did not pay him anything (Doc. 21-1 at 3), plaintiff alleges
claims under federal and state law for unpaid wages.
The complaint contains sufficient factual allegations accepted as true to state claims
under federal and state law. The second and third default judgment factors support entry of
default judgment.
3. Amount in Controversy
The fourth default judgment factor “requires that the court assess whether the
recovery sought is proportional to the harm caused by defendant’s conduct.” Landstar
Ranger, Inc. v. Parth Enterprises, Inc., 725 F. Supp. 2d 916, 921 (C.D. Cal. 2010). When
a large sum is at stake, this factor may weigh against default judgment. Curtis v.
Illumination Arts, Inc., 33 F. Supp. 3d 1200, 1212 (W.D. Wash. 2014).
Plaintiff seeks to recover $4,200, representing “fully trebled, unpaid regular wage
Case 2:25-cv-01438-KML Document 22 Filed 04/21/26 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
damages.” (Doc. 21-1 at 4.) That amount is calculated from the wages owed to plaintiff
and the additions permitted by law. The amount therefore is proportional to the harm
caused by defendants’ conduct and this factor supports entry of default judgment
4. Dispute Over Material Facts
The fifth factor is whether there are any disputes over material facts. Defendants’
decision not to respond to the complaint means there are no such disputes. This factor
supports entry of default judgment.
5. Excusable Neglect
Defendants were served but chose not to participate. There is no indication
defendants’ behavior is due to excusable neglect. See Shanghai Automation Instrument Co.
v. Kuei, 194 F. Supp. 2d 995, 1005 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (defendants’ failure to respond to
complaint could not “be attributable to excusable neglect” because “[a]ll were properly
served with the Complaint, the notice of entry of default, as well as the papers in support
of the instant motion.”). This factor supports entry of default judgment.
6. Policy Favoring Decisions on the Merits
The seventh factor recognizes a preference for resolving matters on their merits.
This factor, as always, weighs against entry of default judgment. “However, the mere
existence of Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b) indicates that this preference, standing alone, is not
dispositive.” PepsiCo, 238 F. Supp. 2d at 1177 (simplified).
7. Default Judgment is Merited
Viewed together, the seven factors establish default judgment is appropriate. The
final issue is the appropriate amount of damages.
8. Damages
It is plaintiff’s burden to prove the amount of his damages. Blumenthal Distrib., Inc.
v. Comoch Inc., 652 F. Supp. 3d 1117, 1131 (C.D. Cal. 2023). For purposes of Arizona’s
minimum wage law, plaintiff is owed $588 ($14.70 multiplied by 40 hours).1 Arizona law
provides that plaintiff’s $588 in unpaid minimum wages should be trebled to $1,764.
1 The federal minimum wage is lower so it can be ignored.
Case 2:25-cv-01438-KML Document 22 Filed 04/21/26 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A.R.S. § 23-364(G). Arizona law provides that plaintiff’s unpaid wages of $1,400 should
be trebled to $4,200. A.R.S. § 23-355(A).
The Arizona Wage Act (“AWA”), A.R.S. § 23-350(3), defines “employer” “much
more narrowly” than the Arizona Minimum Wage Act (“AMWA”). Rosen v. Fasttrak
Foods LLC, No. CV-19-05292-PHX-DWL, 2021 WL 2981590, at *5 (D. Ariz. July 15,
2021). The AWA’s narrower definition does not “authorize individual liability against the
owners, officers, and directors of a corporate employer in a case where the claim is for the
employer’s wholesale failure to pay wages.” Id. This means plaintiff’s damages under the
AWA can be assessed only against the limited liability companies. By contrast, plaintiff’s
damages under the AMWA can be assessed against all defendants. The total damages are
apportioned as follows:
• Power Connections LLC and Power Connections Consulting LLC are jointly
and severally liable for $4,200; and
• Power Connections LLC, Power Connections Consulting LLC, Adam Allen,
Jessica Allen, Morgan Allen, and John Doe Allen are jointly and severally
liable for $1,764.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 21) is GRANTED. The
Clerk of Court shall enter a judgment of $4,200 against defendants Power Connections
LLC and Power Connections Consulting LLC. That judgment shall also reflect $1,764 of
the $4,200 is entered against Power Connections LLC, Power Connections Consulting
LLC, Adam Allen, Jessica Allen, Morgan Allen, and John Doe Allen jointly and severally.
The Clerk of Court shall close this case.
Dated this 21st day of April, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-01438-KML Document 22 Filed 04/21/26 Page 4 of 4