Jimenez v. Computer Express International Ltd. et al
Filing
20
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER dated 3/10/15 that plaintiff's motion for a default judgment is granted. The form of judgment tendered by plaintiff as modified by this decision shall be entered separately. ( Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 3/10/2015 ) (Guzzi, Roseann)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------- X
:
ANTONIO JIMENEZ, on behalf of himself,
:
FLSA Collective plaintiffs and the Class,
:
: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
Plaintiff,
: ORDER
:
- against : 14-cv-5657 (BMC)
:
COMPUTER EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL
:
LTD. and ICOMP.COM INC.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
----------------------------------------------------------- X
COGAN, District Judge.
Plaintiff is a former warehouse worker who brings this action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq, and corresponding New York State labor law provisions,
alleging that defendants failed to pay him overtime during his more than nine years of
employment with defendants. The case is before me on plaintiff’s motion for a default
judgment.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges that he worked as a warehouse worker from January 2005 until his
termination on July 9, 2014. The complaint further alleges that plaintiff worked from 9:30 a.m.
to 6:30 p.m. five days a week but that at least twice a week, he was required to work two hours
past his scheduled hours. His compensation, however, was on a fixed-salary basis of $522 per
week before 2008; then $650 per week until July, 2009; then $700 per week until November,
2010, and then $750 per week until he was terminated. The complaint also alleges that
defendant’s failure to pay overtime was willful, and that defendants failed to provide proper
wage notices as required by the New York Labor Law. Finally, the complaint alleges that
defendants were engaged in interstate commerce and that they had gross revenues in excess of
$500,000.
In support of his motion, plaintiff has filed an affidavit confirming his hours worked as
stated in the complaint.
DISCUSSION
It is hornbook law that on a motion for default judgment, the well-pleaded allegations of
the complaint pertaining to liability are accepted as true. Credit Lyonnais Sec. (USA), Inc. v.
Alcantara, 183 F.3d 151, 155 (2d Cir. 1999). In the instant case, the complaint’s allegations are
sufficient to establish liability.
It is equally well settled that on a motion for a default judgment, the default does not
constitute an admission as to the damages claimed in the complaint. Finkel v. Romanowicz, 577
F.3d 79, 83 n.6 (2d Cir. 2009). The burden is on plaintiffs to establish, by a reasonable certainty,
their entitlement to the relief requested. See Greyhound Exhibitgroup, Inc. v. E.L.U.L. Realty
Corp., 973 F.2d 155, 158 (2d Cir. 1992). To determine damages, the court may conduct an
inquest, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2), or may rely upon the affidavits and other documentary
evidence provided by plaintiffs, obviating the need for a hearing on damages. See Transatlantic
Marine Claims Agency, Inc. v. Ace Shipping Co., 109 F.3d 105, 111 (2d Cir. 1997).
There is no need for an inquest here. Plaintiff has established by documentary evidence
the amount of damages that defendants owe him. His affidavit identifies the hours that he
worked and the amount and basis on which he was paid, and it shows that he was not paid
overtime. The elements of damages he seeks as a result of this violation are: (1) back pay for
2
each of the periods in which his salary varied, beginning six years before the filing of this action;
(2) liquidated damages under both New York State law and the FLSA; and (3) a statutory penalty
for failure to furnish wage statements as required under the New York Labor Law.
Plaintiff has submitted a spreadsheet showing his attorneys’ computation of these
amounts and while it is mathematically correct, I have a different view as to plaintiff’s
entitlement to relief based on two of those elements. First, I will only allow liquidated damages
once, not under both the FLSA and New York Labor Law. The case law is conflicting; although
some cases speak of a “majority view” that double recovery is permitted because liquidated
damages serve different purposes under each statute, see, e.g., Eschmann v. White Plains Crane
Serv., Inc., No. 11-cv-5881, 2014 WL 1224247, at *7-8 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2014), I see no
reason why one award of liquidated damages does not adequately satisfy both purposes, and I
therefore agree with those cases holding that one recovery of liquidated damages is sufficient.
See, e.g., Gortat v. Capala Bros., 949 F. Supp. 2d 374, 381-82 (E.D.N.Y. 2013). Because the
New York Labor Law allows recovery for a period going back six years and the FLSA only
three, the former yields a higher amount of liquidated damages, and I will allow that.
Second, I am not familiar with plaintiff’s claim for a statutory penalty of $2500 pursuant
to the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff does not cite the statute, but if he is referring to N.Y. Lab.
L. §195, the Second Circuit has suggested, as appears from the language of the statute, that there
is no private right of action under it. See Chimarev v. TD Waterhouse Investor Servs., Inc., 99
F. App’x 259, 261 (2d Cir. 2004).
3
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment is granted. The form of judgment tendered by
plaintiff as modified by this decision shall be entered separately.
SO ORDERED.
Digitally signed by Brian M. Cogan
U.S.D.J.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
March 10, 2015
4
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?