Nunez Sanchez et al v. Bavarian Mansion, LLC et al
Filing
18
ORDER GRANTING DEFAULT JUDGMENT: It is ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment (Dkt. No. 15 ) is GRANTED as to Count I (FLSA), Count II (NYLL), and Count III (IRC) of the complaint (Dkt. No. 1). Plaintiff Alejandro Nunez Sanchez SH ALL RECOVER from defendants Bavarian Mansion, LLC, Five Furlongs Tavern, LLC, and Garrett Doyle, jointly and severally, for unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, unpaid overtime premiums, unpaid spread-of-hours premiums, New York Law Labor La w liquidated damages, damages for late payment of wages, statutory damages, and Internal Revenue Code penalties totaling $75,808.54. Plaintiff Rosendo Nunez SHALL RECOVER from defendants Bavarian Mansion, LLC, Five Furlongs Tavern, LLC, and Gar rett Doyle, jointly and severally, for unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, unpaid overtime premiums, unpaid spread-of-hours premiums, New York Law Labor Law liquidated damages, damages for late payment of wages, statutory damages, and Intern al Revenue Code penalties totaling $88,068.41. Plaintiff's state-law claims in Count IV (breach of contract) and Count V (unjust enrichment) are sua sponte DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motion, enter a judgment accordingly, and close the file. Signed by U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Brindisi on 1/29/2025. (nmk)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________
ALEJANDRO NUNEZ SANCHEZ
and ROSENDO NUNEZ, on behalf of
themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
and the Class,
Plaintiffs,
-v-
1:24-CV-693 (AJB/DJS)
BAVARIAN MANSION, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
APPEARANCES:
OF COUNSEL:
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
C.K. LEE, ESQ.
Hon. Anthony Brindisi, U.S. District Judge:
ORDER GRANTING DEFAULT JUDGMENT
On May 21, 2024, named plaintiffs Alejandro Nunez Sanchez (“Sanchez”) and Rosendo
Nunez (“Nunez”), two kitchen workers formerly employed in restaurants owned and managed by
defendants Bavarian Mansion, LLC, Five Furlongs Tavern, LLC, and Garrett Doyle (collectively
“defendants”), filed this putative collective action alleging wage-and-hour violations under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), New York Labor Law (“NYLL”), and the Internal Revenue
Code (“IRC”). Dkt. No. 1. 1 Defendants were served, Dkt. Nos. 6, 7, 8, but failed to answer or
Plaintiffs’ operative complaint also alleges state-law claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Dkt.
No. 1.
1
-1-
appear in this action, see Dkt. No. 11. Thereafter, plaintiffs sought the entry of default, Dkt. No.
12, which the Clerk of the Court certified on October 16, 2024, Dkt. No. 13.
On November 18, 2024, plaintiffs moved under Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure for a default judgment as to the named plaintiffs. Dkt. No. 15. Despite being served
with plaintiffs’ moving papers, Dkt. No. 16, defendants have again failed to respond. The time
period in which to do so has since expired. See Dkt. No. 15. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion
will be considered on the basis of the available submissions without oral argument.
Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides a two-step process for obtaining
a default judgment. FED. R. CIV. P. 55(a)–(b). The first step is to obtain an entry of default from
the Clerk of the Court. FED. R. CIV. P. 55(a). The second step is to move for a default judgment,
which must be approved by the court except in those rare cases where the plaintiff’s claim is for
a sum certain. FED. R. CIV. P. 55(b)(1)–(2).
“[A] party’s default is deemed to constitute a concession of all well pleaded allegations of
liability.” Greyhound Exhibitgroup, Inc. v. E.L.U.L. Realty Corp., 973 F.2d 155, 158 (2d Cir.
1992). But “it is not considered an admission of damages.” Id. And “it remains for the court to
consider whether the unchallenged facts constitute a legitimate cause of action, since a party in
default does not admit conclusions of law.” LaBarbera v. ASTC Lab’ys Inc., 752 F. Supp. 2d
263, 270 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (cleaned up). “Put differently, liability does not automatically attach
from the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint, as it remains the court’s responsibility that
the factual allegations, accepted as true, provide a proper basis for liability and relief.” RollsRoyce PLC v. Rolls-Royce USA, Inc., 688 F. Supp. 2d 150, 153 (E.D.N.Y. 2010).
If liability is established, the court must proceed to determine what, if any, damages
should be awarded. See, e.g., Flaks v. Koegel, 504 F.2d 702, 707 (2d Cir. 1974) (“While a
-2-
default judgment constitutes an admission of liability, the quantum of damages remains to be
established by proof . . . . ”). This involves two basic requirements: first, the court must ensure
that there is “an adequate basis” for any of the damages sought; and second, the court must be
able to ascertain the amount of the plaintiff’s damages “with reasonable certainty.” Antoine v.
Brooklyn Maids 26, Inc., 489 F. Supp. 3d 68, 90 (E.D.N.Y. 2020). A trial court can make this
determination based on evidence presented at a hearing or upon a review of detailed affidavits or
other documentary evidence. See, e.g., Cement & Concrete Workers Dist. Council Welfare Fund
v. Metro Found. Contr., Inc., 699 F.3d 230, 234 (2d Cir. 2012).
Briefly stated, plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that corporate defendants Bavarian Mansion,
LLC and Five Furlongs Tavern, LLC are domestic limited liability companies headquartered in
Greene County, New York. Compl. ¶¶ 14–15. The LLCs are controlled by individual defendant
Garrett Doyle. 2 Id. ¶ 16. Defendants operate two “sister restaurants” in Greene County that are
run as a single integrated enterprise, sharing ownership, management, employees, supplies, and
advertising. Id. ¶¶ 20–21. Named plaintiffs Sanchez and Nunez were hired by defendants to
work as cooks in the restaurants. Id. ¶¶ 40, 43. Defendants paid Sanchez and Nunez at fixedrate salaries regardless of the number of hours they actually worked, which routinely totaled
seventy-five hours each week. Id. ¶¶ 41–42, 44–45. Although defendants sometimes withheld
partial taxes, both men were given the bulk of their earnings in cash. Id. ¶¶ 57–58.
Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment seeks recovery for: (1) unpaid wages under the
FLSA and the NYLL; (2) unpaid wages, premiums, and statutory damages under the NYLL; (3)
statutory damages under the IRC; and (4) attorney’s fees and costs under the FLSA, the NYLL,
Doyle’s domicile is not alleged with particularity in the pleading, but the record shows that this defendant was
personally served within the Northern District of New York. Dkt. No. 8.
2
-3-
and the IRC. Pls.’ Mem., Dkt. No. 15-10 at 9. 3 In total, plaintiffs seek $75,808.54 on behalf of
Sanchez and $88,068.41 on behalf of Nunez. Lee Aff., Dkt. No. 15-1 ¶¶ 33, 34.
Upon review of plaintiffs’ submissions, and based on the well-pleaded allegations in the
operative complaint, plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment will be granted for substantially the
reasons set forth in their supporting memorandum of law. See Dkt. No. 15.
First, the allegations in the complaint are sufficient to establish that defendants are liable
under the FLSA. See, e.g., Sanchez v. Ms. Wine Shop Inc., 643 F. Supp. 3d 355, 366 (E.D.N.Y.
2022) (finding that manual laborer employed by a retail shop could pursue “enterprise” FLSA
theory against corporate and individual defendants and noting that the statute typically reaches
even purely local business activities).
Second, the same set of factual allegations are sufficient to establish that defendants are
also liable under the NYLL, which uses nearly identical statutory definitions and sweeps even
more broadly than its federal counterpart. See, e.g., Ethelberth v. Choice Sec. Co., 91 F. Supp.
3d 339, 360 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (“[C]ourts in the Second Circuit have generally applied their
analysis of a plaintiff’s FLSA claim to a plaintiff’s NYLL claim due to the substantial similarity
in the provisions.”).
Third, plaintiffs’ factual allegations, and in particular the reasonable inferences that can
be drawn from them, are sufficient to establish that defendants willfully filed IRC returns that did
not reflect the total amount of wages paid to the two men. Rosario v. Fresh Smoothies LLC,
2021 WL 5847633, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2021) (finding defendants’ filing of inaccurate W-2
sufficient to establish this kind of claim on default judgment); but see Sarr v. VEP Assocs., LLC,
2024 WL 1251600, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2024) (recommending denial of default judgment
3
Pagination corresponds to CM/ECF headers.
-4-
motion because similar allegations failed to establish the willful filing of a fraudulent return by a
specific defendant).
Fourth, plaintiffs’ memorandum of law establishes that the categories of damages being
sought are recoverable under the FLSA, the NYLL, and/or the IRC. The FLSA covers unpaid
minimum wages and overtime. 29 U.S.C. §§ 206, 207(a)(1). The FLSA also has a provision for
liquidated damages. § 216(b). Similarly, the NYLL covers unpaid minimum wages, overtime,
and “spread-of-hours” premiums, N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS. tit. 12, §§ 142-2.1, 142-2.2,
142-2.4, as well as liquidated damages, N.Y. LAB. LAW § 663(1). Unlike the FLSA, however,
additional NYLL statutory provisions provide a damages remedy 4 for late wages, § 191(1)(a),
and statutory damages for late notices and statements, §§ 198(1-b), (1-d). The IRC provides for
certain statutory damages, too. 26 U.S.C. § 7374(b).
Fifth, plaintiffs’ evidentiary submissions establish an adequate basis on which to award
these damages. For instance, although a plaintiff may not recover under both the FLSA and the
NYLL for the same injury, Gamero v. Koodo Sushi Corp., 272 F. Supp. 3d 481, 498 (S.D.N.Y.
2017), plaintiffs’ damages calculations rely on the broader protections of the NYLL. See Ex. F
to Lee Decl., Dkt. No. 15-7; Ex. G to Lee Decl., Dkt. No. 15-8. A review of these calculations
shows that they appear to have been correctly adjusted to account for certain state-law statutory
limitations. See id. (limiting recovery for wage notices and statements to $5,000 cap). Likewise,
although the Second Circuit has held that a double recovery of liquidated damages under both
the FLSA and the NYLL would be improper, Rana v. Islam, 887 F.3d 118, 123 (2d Cir. 2018),
plaintiffs’ damages calculations appear to seek only a single recovery of liquidated damages
matching the amount of unpaid wages and premiums properly recoverable under the NYLL.
See, e.g., Rankine v. Levi Strauss & Co., 674 F. Supp. 3d 57, 66 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (concluding that late payment of
wages gives rise to private right of action under state law).
4
-5-
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment (Dkt. No. 15) is GRANTED as to Count I
(FLSA), Count II (NYLL), and Count III (IRC) of the complaint (Dkt. No. 1);
2. Plaintiff Alejandro Nunez Sanchez SHALL RECOVER from defendants Bavarian
Mansion, LLC, Five Furlongs Tavern, LLC, and Garrett Doyle, jointly and severally, for unpaid
minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, unpaid overtime premiums, unpaid spread-of-hours
premiums, New York Law Labor Law liquidated damages, damages for late payment of wages,
statutory damages, and Internal Revenue Code penalties totaling $75,808.54; and
3. Plaintiff Rosendo Nunez SHALL RECOVER from defendants Bavarian Mansion,
LLC, Five Furlongs Tavern, LLC, and Garrett Doyle, jointly and severally, for unpaid minimum
wages, unpaid overtime wages, unpaid overtime premiums, unpaid spread-of-hours premiums,
New York Law Labor Law liquidated damages, damages for late payment of wages, statutory
damages, and Internal Revenue Code penalties totaling $88,068.41; and
4. Plaintiff’s state-law claims in Count IV (breach of contract) and Count V (unjust
enrichment) are sua sponte DISMISSED without prejudice.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motion, enter a judgment
accordingly, and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 29, 2025
Utica, New York.
-6-
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?