Gonsalez et al v. Marin et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: In line with the foregoing, plaintiffs are awarded, against all defendants, jointly and severally, a total of $205,709.35, plus prejudgment interest at the rate of 9% per year, to be computed through the date Judgment is entered. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with the damages outlined in the R&R and to close this case. Ordered by Judge Eric N. Vitaliano on 6/4/2014. (fwd for judgment) (Fernandez, Erica)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
.~Uf( 'f'""'T~. ~
--------------------------------------------------------------x ' . ' ' - 201+
MARIA DE LOURDES DIAZ GONSALEZ, •. :BROOKLYN OFtce
RUTH VERONICA DOMINGUEZ CAMPOS; :· · .,_ .. , :Ji:
and LAURA VIDALS, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated,
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
12-cv-1157 (ENV) (RML)
-againstARCADIO MARIN, OSCAR MARIN, JOSEFA:
MOLINA VILLADA, JACINTA GUZMAN,
BALLOONS PARTY, INC., BALLOONS
PARY, INC., PARTY SURPRISE, INC., and
HAPPY FIESTA CORP.,
VIT ALIANO, D.J.,
On September 20, 2013, the Court granted default judgment against all
defendants, and referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy for
inquest to determine appropriate damages. On April 25, 2014, Judge Levy, in his
report following the inquest, recommended that plaintiffs be awarded $33,154.50 in
unpaid minimum wages, $12,919.50 in unpaid overtime wages, $5,539 in unpaid
spread-of-hours wages, $90,226.10 in liquidated damages, $30,000 in damages for
false imprisonment, $9,400 in damages for wage and hour notice violations of the
New York Labor Law, $10,220 in attorney's fees, and $850 in costs, plus $13,400.25
in damages for pregnancy discrimination against plaintiff Laura Vidals, in violation
of the New York State and City Human Rights Laws, for a total of$205,709.35, plus
prejudgment interest at the rate of 9°/o per year.
In reviewing a report and recommendation ("R&R") of a magistrate judge, a
district judge "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). A district
judge is required to "make a de novo determination upon the record, or after
additional evidence, of any portion of the magistrate judge's disposition to which
specific written objection has been made" by any party, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), but
where no timely objection has been made, the "district court need only satisfy itself
that there is no clear error on the face of the record" to accept a magistrate judge's
R&R. Urena v. New York, 160 F. Supp. 2d 606, 609-10 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (quoting
Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)).
Judge Levy's R&R gave proper notice that any objection had to have been
filed within 14 days. Neither plaintiffs nor defendants have objected to Judge Levy's
R&R at all, much less within the time prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). In accord
with the applicable clear error standard of review, the Court finds Judge Levy's
R&R to be correct, well-reasoned, and free of any clear error. The Court, therefore,
adopts it in its entirety as the opinion of the Court.
In line with the foregoing, plaintiffs are awarded, against all defendants,
jointly and severally, a total of$205,709.35, plus prejudgment interest at the rate of
9o/o per year, to be computed through the date Judgment is entered.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with the
damages outlined in the R&R and to close this case.
Brooklyn, New York
s/Eric N. Vitaliano
ERIC N. VITALIANO
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?