Sanchez v. Viva Nail NY Inc. et al

Filing 23

DECISION AND ORDER - For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby: ORDERED, that Judge Lindsays Report and Recommendation entered on December 17, 2014, is adopted in its entirety, and it is further ORDERED, that the Plaintiffs renewed motion for attorneys fees is granted and the Plaintiff is awarded $11,727.25 in attorneys fees. See Decision for further details. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 1/6/2015. (Coleman, Laurie)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------X
LUISA SANCHEZ,
Plaintiff,
-against-

DECISION AND ORDER
12-cv-6322 (ADS)(ARL)

VIVA NAIL NY INC. and YANG S. CHU,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------X
APPEARANCES:
Frank & Associates P.C.
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
500 Bi-county Blvd, 112n
Farmingdale, NY 11735
By:
Peter Arcadio Romero, Esq.
Andrea E. Batres, Esq., Of Counsel
NO APPEARANCES:
Viva Nail NY Inc.
Yang S. Chu
SPATT, District Judge.
The Plaintiff Luisa Sanchez (the “Plaintiff”) commenced this action on or
about December 21, 2012, asserting claims against the Defendants Viva Nail NY
Inc. and Yang S. Chu (the “Defendants”) for failure to pay the minimum wage in
violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York State labor law.
The Clerk of the Court having noted the default of the Defendants on April 29,
2013, on August 15, 2013, the Court referred this matter to United States Magistrate
Arlene R. Lindsay for a recommendation as to whether the Plaintiff’s motion for a

default judgment should be granted, and if so, whether damages should be awarded,
including reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
On February 12, 2014, Judge Lindsay issued a thorough report
recommending that a default judgment be granted and that the Plaintiff be awarded
an amount of $30,552.47 in unpaid minimum, overtime and spread of hours wages;
$32,450.04 in liquidated damages; and $492.60 in costs. Of relevance here, Judge
Lindsay recommended that the Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees be denied
because she “ha[d] not provided the court with any information concerning the level
of experience of the attorneys who worked on the case.” Judge Lindsay also noted
that the Plaintiff utilized a “blended rate” of $275 per hour, “which makes the
assessment even more difficult.” The Plaintiff subsequently filed limited objections
to Judge Lindsay’s report.
On March 4, 2014, this Court adopted Judge Lindsay’s Report and
Recommendation; denied the Plaintiff’s objections without prejudice; and directed
the Plaintiff to renew her motion for prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees with
proper documentation within thirty days of the date of that order.
On March 27, 2014, the Plaintiff renewed her application, albeit not by
notice of motion, for attorneys’ fees. The Plaintiff did not pursue prejudgment
interest. On May 7, 2014, the Court referred this matter to Judge Lindsay for a
recommendation as to whether the renewed motion for attorneys’ fees should be
granted.
On December 17, 2014, Judge Lindsay issued a thorough report
recommending that the Plaintiff’s renewed motion for attorneys’ fees be granted

2

and the Plaintiff awarded $11,727.25 in attorneys’ fees. Judge Lindsay surveyed
the contemporaneous time records of the Plaintiff’s counsel, reflecting the time
spent and activities performed by each attorney. Judge Lindsay also reviewed the
proposed hourly rates for the Plaintiff’s attorneys, which ranged from $200 to $375.
In Judge Lindsay’s view, the proposed rates and hours expended were reasonable.
On December 19, 2014, the Plaintiff filed proof of service on the
Defendants of a copy of the December 17, 2014 report and recommendation.
In reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district
court “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)(1). To adopt
portions of a report and recommendation to which no objections have been made,
“a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the
record.” Harris v. Queens Cnty. Dist. Attorney's Office, No. 08–CV–1703 (CBA),
2012 WL 832837, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2012)(citation and internal quotation
marks omitted). The Court has reviewed Judge Lindsay’s Report and finds it be
persuasive and without any legal or factual errors. There being no objection to
Judge Lindsay’s Report, the Court adopts the Report.
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that Judge Lindsay’s Report and Recommendation entered on
December 17, 2014, is adopted in its entirety, and it is further
ORDERED, that the Plaintiff’s renewed motion for attorney’s fees is
granted and the Plaintiff is awarded $11,727.25 in attorneys’ fees.

3

SO ORDERED.
Dated: Central Islip, New York
January 6, 2015
Arthur D. Spatt
______________
ARTHUR D. SPATT
United States District Judge

4