Brian Lloyd v. Salon Xtensions LLC

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas grants, as modified, Brian Lloyd’s renewed motion for default judgment against Salon Xtensions LLC. The court finds that service was adequate and that the unanswered allegations establish violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, as well as a promissory estoppel claim. The court sets an evidentiary hearing on damages for May 20, 2026, and orders Lloyd to serve the order and file proof of service.

Holdings

1. Service was sufficient because the process server served the summons and complaint on Salon's registered agent in Florida, satisfying the applicable federal and Florida service rules.
2. Salon conceded the well-pleaded liability facts by failing to respond, and its failure to pay minimum wage and overtime and to maintain accurate records established violations of the FLSA and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.
3. Lloyd acted as an employee rather than an independent contractor because Salon controlled when, where, and how he performed sales work that was central to Salon's business and Salon set the prices.
4. Lloyd's approximately $173.06 weekly compensation was too little to classify him as an exempt employee.
5. Lloyd established a promissory estoppel claim based on Salon's failure to perform its obligations under the commission agreement made with him.
6. The court would determine damages at a subsequent evidentiary hearing rather than resolve the damages amount in the order granting default judgment as modified.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Lloyd cured the defects in service of process so that default judgment could be considered.
2. Whether Salon's failure to respond established liability on Lloyd's pleaded Fair Labor Standards Act and Arkansas Minimum Wage Act claims.
3. Whether the pleaded facts established that Lloyd was an employee rather than an independent contractor and was not exempt from minimum-wage and overtime requirements.
4. Whether the pleaded facts established liability on Lloyd's promissory estoppel claim.
5. Whether damages should be determined at a later evidentiary hearing.

Disposition

other