Lin v. Grand Sichuan 74 st Inc. et al

Filing 265

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 248 Report and Recommendations. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, see Dkt. 243, is granted, except that the award of attorneys' fees shall be $47,177. Plaint iffs are awarded $2,368.80 in costs. Damages are assessed as follows: (1) $191,635.80 for Lin; (2) $81,504.69 for Li; (3) $57,781.74 for Ding; (4) $53,438.81 for Weng; (5) $28,835.20 for Zhao; (6) $58,553.34 for She n; (7) $23,344.64 for Wang; (8) $81,076.72 for Zhu. For the reasons stated, Judge Fox's Report is adopted, with the modification to the amount of attorneys' fees mentioned above. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to ter minate the motion pending at Dkt. 243, to enter judgment against the remaining Defendants, and to close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 2/11/2021) (kv) Transmission to Finance Unit (Cashiers) for processing. Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

Case 1:15-cv-02950-RA-KNF Document 265 Filed 02/11/21 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

USDC-SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC#:
DATE FILED: 02/11/2021

YUNJIAN LIN, YOUNG JUN LI, WEI WEI
DING, LI WENG, WEI TING ZHAO,
YUHAI ZHU, YOUMIN SHEN and MIAO
WANG, on their own behalf and on behalf of
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GRAND SICHUAN 74 ST INC d/b/a
GRAND SICHUAN 74, GRAND SICHUAN
75 ST INC. d/b/a GRAND SICHUAN 74,
GRAND SICHUAN NY INC. d/b/a GRAND
SICHUAN NY, GUANG JUN LI, YONG
SHU LI, LI JIANG, YONG LI LI, GUANG
LI LI and CHENG CHEN,

No. 15-CV-2950 (RA)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

Defendants.
RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge:
Plaintiffs, former employees of a restaurant named Grand Sichuan 74, brought this action
in 2015 against the restaurant’s purported owners, operators, or managers, alleging violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”), among other
claims. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment in July 2019 and referred the
matter to Magistrate Judge Fox for an inquest into damages. See Dkts. 210, 211. In June 2020,
the Court adopted a report and recommendation from Judge Fox, which recommended that the
Court award no damages to Plaintiffs, but gave Plaintiffs an opportunity to cure the deficiencies
identified by Judge Fox. The Plaintiffs took that opportunity, and now before the Court is a

Case 1:15-cv-02950-RA-KNF Document 265 Filed 02/11/21 Page 2 of 9

second report and recommendation from Judge Fox (“the Report”), which recommends an award
of damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs, see Dkt. 248, as well as Defendants’ objections to the
Report, see Dkt. 258, and Plaintiffs’ responses to the objections, see Dkt. 259. For the reasons
that follow, the Court adopts the Report, with one modification as set forth below.
BACKGROUND
The Court presumes the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this
action, and mentions only the developments that bear on Plaintiffs’ request for an award of
damages, fees, and costs.
On July 29, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment with respect
to the majority of their claims, and referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Fox for an inquest
into damages. See Dkts. 210, 211. On May 12, 2020, Judge Fox issued a first report and
recommendation recommending that the Court award no damages to Plaintiffs on the basis of
multiple deficiencies in Plaintiffs’ Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. See Dkt.
239. The Court adopted that report and declined to award damages to Plaintiffs, but gave them
“one more opportunity” to cure the deficiencies identified in Judge Fox’s report. See Dkt. 240.
Plaintiffs then submitted revised proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, as well as
accompanying exhibits and affidavits, see Dkts. 241–242, and moved for an award of attorneys’
fees and costs, see Dkt. 243.
Judge Fox issued the Report on August 13, 2020, recommending that the Court award
Plaintiff $53,681 in attorneys’ fees and $2,368.80 in costs, and award damages to Plaintiffs in the
following amounts: (1) $191,635.80 for Lin; (2) $81,504.69 for Li; (3) $57,781.74 for Ding; (4)
$53,438.81 for Weng; (5) $28,835.20 for Zhao; (6) $58,553.34 for Shen; (7) $23,344.64 for
Wang; (8) $81,076.72 for Zhu. Report at 13. The Report states:

2

Case 1:15-cv-02950-RA-KNF Document 265 Filed 02/11/21 Page 3 of 9

Upon review of the plaintiffs’ revised submissions, the Court finds that the plaintiffs have
cured the deficiencies found in their original inquest submissions and provided detailed
and accurate explanations of the applicable law and evidence of their damages, including
the damages calculation, as well as information pertaining to their attorneys’ fees and
costs request, consisting of detailed descriptions of the various attorneys’ experiences, the
work performed and a summary of the contemporaneously kept time records. Based on
the evidence in the plaintiffs’ revised inquest submissions, the Court finds that the hourly
rates requested in the plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees, and the hours requested are
reasonable. Accordingly, awarding the plaintiffs the requested damages and attorneys’
fees and costs is warranted.
On August 25, 2020, counsel appeared on behalf of Defendants Yong Li Li, Yong Shu
Li, and Li Jiang (“Defendants”), and filed a letter seeking an extension of time in which to object
to the Report. See Dkt. 250. The letter also referenced “alarming discoveries” that, in
Defendants’ view, provide a basis for vacatur of the default judgment. The letter alleges that the
three Defendants were unaware that the matter had still been pending against them, and indeed
that they had not been served with any documents since the withdrawal of their prior counsel,
Yuan Zheng, in 2016. According to the letter, the documents had all been sent to Ms. Zheng’s
office rather than to the individual defendants. Although the letter argues that “well-grounded
reasons exist for vacating the entirety of the Default Judgment in this matter,” they have not yet
moved to vacate the judgment. Id. The Court granted Defendants an extension of time to file
objections to the Report. Dkt. 251.
Defendants submitted objections to the Report on September 16, 2020. See Dkt. 258
(“Objections”). The Objections first reiterated Defendants’ arguments about the validity of the
default judgment from their August 25, 2020 letter, but “[r]ecogniz[ed] that” that letter was
submitted “following the issuance of the R&R” and accordingly limited their submission to
“objections to the R&R.” Id. at 1. The Objections noted Defendants’ intent to file a separate
motion to vacate the default judgment “within the next few days,” which they have not filed. Id.
The Objections raised five specific challenges to Judge Fox’s Report concerning damages and

3

Case 1:15-cv-02950-RA-KNF Document 265 Filed 02/11/21 Page 4 of 9

attorneys’ fees, each of which is discussed below. Id. at 2–4. Plaintiffs responded to the
Objections on September 30, 2020, urging the Court to adopt the Report in its entirety. See Dkt.
259.
LEGAL STANDARD
A 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)(l). Parties may object to a
magistrate judge’s recommended findings “[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy of the
recommended disposition,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), or within 17 days when service is made by
mail, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). A court will review de novo those portions of a report to which the
parties file “timely and specific” objections. Parks v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 15CV-6470 (ER), 2017 WL 3016946, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2017) (citing United States v. Male
Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “When the parties
make no objections to the Report,” however, “the Court may adopt the Report if ‘there is no
clear error on the face of the record.’” Smith v. Corizon Health Servs., No. 14-CV-8839 (GBD)
(SN), 2015 WL 6123563, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2015) (quoting Adee Motor Cars, LLC v.
Amato, 388 F. Supp. 2d 250, 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)). Moreover, “to the extent that the party
makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates the original arguments, the
Court will review the Report strictly for clear error.” Alam v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., No. 07CV-3540 (LTS) (JCF), 2009 WL 3096293, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2009).
DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the parties’ submissions, the Court overrules all but one of
Defendants’ objections and adopts the Report, with a reduction in the award of attorneys’ fees as
set forth below.

4

Case 1:15-cv-02950-RA-KNF Document 265 Filed 02/11/21 Page 5 of 9

The Court first notes that, although Defendants argue that there is a basis for vacating the
default judgment entered against them, see Dkt. 250, and indicated roughly five months ago that
they intended move to vacate the judgment “within the next few days,” see Dkt. 258, they have
not done so. Plaintiffs are thus correct that “Defendants’ default is law of the case.” See Dkt. 259
at 3. Accordingly, the Court limits its analysis here to Defendants’ objections to the Report’s
conclusions regarding the calculation of damages and attorneys’ fees.
Defendants also note five objections to the Report itself, which all fail with one
exception. First, they argue that the Report erred in awarding attorneys’ fees accrued in the
period between May 23, 2018 (when Plaintiffs and another set of Defendants submitted a motion
for settlement approval) and July 2, 2018 (when that settlement was approved by the Court). See
Dkts. 153, 155. As Judge Fox noted, however, Plaintiffs are currently requesting reimbursement
“for costs incurred subsequent to the [May 23, 2018] [m]otion” seeking approval of the
settlement under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F. 3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015), Report
at 5, and Plaintiffs assert that they “have not sought to double-dip” by attempting to recoup any
costs previously invoiced as part of the 2018 settlement agreement. Dkt. 259 at 2. Defendants
have not explained why it would be inappropriate to award costs incurred after the submission of
the motion for settlement approval but prior to the Court’s approval of the settlement, nor have
they provided any basis to conclude that the costs incurred between May 23, 2018 and July 2,
2018 were previously accounted for. In assessing this conclusory objection, the Court discerns
no error—clear or otherwise—in the decision to award attorneys’ fees for that period.
Second, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs should not be permitted to recover attorneys’
fees for any time subsequent to the October 2018 filing of the motion for default judgment. But
they provide no authority for the principle that Plaintiffs cannot obtain fees for work performed

5

Case 1:15-cv-02950-RA-KNF Document 265 Filed 02/11/21 Page 6 of 9

in seeking to obtain a default judgment beyond the initial filing of the motion papers, such as
attending show-cause hearings or completing service. The Court therefore reviews this
recommendation of the Report for clear error, and finds none. See Mario v. P & C Food Markets,
Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002) (“bare statement . . . unsupported by legal authority” was
not an adequate objection under Rule 72). Defendants also argue that “multiple entries [in
Plaintiffs’ damages submissions] pertain to settlement of the Aidi Defendants and should not
have been included in its submitted invoice.” Objections at 2. Although Defendants purport to
identify several entries that pertain to the settlement with the other set of defendants, they
provide no basis for concluding that they do so pertain. Plaintiffs, meanwhile, attest that all the
entries “pertain to this application for default against these Defendants.” Dkt. 2. Having been
given no reason to doubt that assertion or the Report’s finding, the Court considers this objection
to be perfunctory and conclusory. Reviewing this aspect of the attorneys’ fees award for clear
error, the second objection is overruled.
Third, Defendants assert that the Report improperly recommended an award of attorneys’
fees to Plaintiffs’ attorneys for time spent “fixing, reviewing, or addressing their own errors in
preparing, serving, filing and processing their own motions, or their own work in repairing
service errors, missed deadlines, and improper submissions.” Objections at 3. It is true that
“[c]ourts in this circuit have consistently found that time expended by an attorney in remedying
his own errors is not compensable.” Mister Sprout, Inc. v. Williams Farms Produce Sales, Inc.,
881 F. Supp. 2d 482, 491 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). Defendants’ objections, however, are not particularly
helpful in that they largely fail to identify which entries in Plaintiffs’ counsel’s submissions
might pertain to time spent correcting his own errors. Defendants instead argue in a general and

6

Case 1:15-cv-02950-RA-KNF Document 265 Filed 02/11/21 Page 7 of 9

conclusory manner that “Counsel’s invoices are rife with these charges and should be wholly
excluded.” Objections at 3.
Defendants point only to two specific offending entries: an entry for 0.3 hours on May
23, 2018 ($115.50) and an entry for 1 hour on September 6, 2018 ($550), each accounting for
time in which Plaintiffs’ counsel reviewed orders of the Court that noted his errors. The Court
can also identify several other entries that appear to constitute time spent addressing the
deficiencies identified by Judge Fox in his May 2020 report, which was adopted by the Court in
June 2020. See Dkts. 239, 240. Namely, the entries on June 10, June 24, June 25, June 26, June
29, June 30, and July 1 of 2020—which together account for $5,838.50—appear to all relate to
time spent revising affidavits and submissions in connection with the second proposed findings
of fact and conclusions of law. See Dkt. 244-1 at 12-13. Plaintiffs acknowledge that their initial
submission to Judge Fox relating to the inquest for damages was “deficient in the first instance.”
Dkt. 259 at 3. The Court will accordingly reduce the recommended award of attorneys’ fees by
$6,504 to a total of $47,177.
Fourth, Defendants assert that statements in several affidavits submitted in support of the
motion for default judgment are inaccurate, and that this “should be weighed in respect of
Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees.” See Objections at 3–4. Defendants frame this objection
solely with respect to attorneys’ fees (as opposed to liability or damages), arguing that the time
Plaintiffs’ counsel billed for preparing the default judgment motion should be “significantly
reduced as most of the documents for which work was charged are blind cut-and-paste efforts.”
Id. at 3. Once again, however, Defendants’ allegations of sloppy work and cut-and-paste efforts
are perfunctory. Defendants cite two purportedly inaccurate affidavits, but do not cite to anything
in the record showing those affidavits to be inaccurate and, more to the point, do not provide any

7

Case 1:15-cv-02950-RA-KNF Document 265 Filed 02/11/21 Page 8 of 9

basis whatsoever for the Court to conclude that any alleged errors were the result of Plaintiffs’
counsel’s carelessness. Accordingly, the Court considers this objection to be conclusory and
finds that it reveals no clear error in the Report.
Finally, Defendants note that, in granting the default judgment, the Court dismissed two
of the causes of action in the complaint, and that Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees should therefore be
deducted for litigating claims that were dismissed. But Defendants do not identify time entries
that refer to work spent on those claims, nor do they propose any method by which the Court can
reasonably identify what time was spent on those claims. Plaintiffs assert, moreover, that “[t]he
amount of time spent on those claims was minimal,” as the claims were “pleaded and not
pursued thereafter.” Dkt. 259 at 3. Judge Fox therefore did not err—clearly or otherwise—in
declining to deduct fees for those causes of action, and the Court overrules this objection.
The Court has reviewed the remainder of the report, including the rates charged for each
attorney, for clear error. See Adee Motor Cars, 388 F. Supp. 2d at 253. Having found none, the
Court adopts the remainder of the Report. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees, see
Dkt. 243, is granted, except that the award of attorneys’ fees shall be $47,177. Plaintiffs are
awarded $2,368.80 in costs. Damages are assessed as follows: (1) $191,635.80 for Lin; (2)
$81,504.69 for Li; (3) $57,781.74 for Ding; (4) $53,438.81 for Weng; (5) $28,835.20 for Zhao;
(6) $58,553.34 for Shen; (7) $23,344.64 for Wang; (8) $81,076.72 for Zhu.

8

Case 1:15-cv-02950-RA-KNF Document 265 Filed 02/11/21 Page 9 of 9

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, Judge Fox’s Report is adopted, with the modification to the
amount of attorneys’ fees mentioned above. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to
terminate the motion pending at Dkt. 243, to enter judgment against the remaining Defendants,
and to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 11, 2021
New York, New York

________________________________
Ronnie Abrams
United States District Judge

9