Douglas et al v. Spartan Demolition Company LLC et al
Filing
74
OPINION AND ORDER re: 65 MOTION for Default Judgment as to ALL DEFENDANTS filed by Shaheem Jones, Joe Smith, Eric Dupree, Shreal Douglas, Michael Bautista. Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs are awar ded judgment against the AJS Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows: (1) $10,426.88 to Douglas; (2) $13,186.88 to Smith; (3) $10,426.88 to Bautista; (4) $7,820.16 to Dupree; (5) $4,902.40 to Jones and (6) $71,5 37.15 in attorneys' fees and costs. Thus, in total, plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment of $118,300.35. Plaintiffs' counsel is directed to submit a proposed judgment. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 9/20/2018) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (mro)
USDCSDNY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------x
SHREAL DOUGLAS, individually and
on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, et al.,
DOCUI+.ffil\:"'T
] ELE~RON:C.i\.LLY FILED
f DOC #. -·"
< 1
,DATEFILED:~.
15 Civ.
Plaintiffs,
5126
~I/lo- :
(HBP)
OPINION
AND ORDER
-againstSPARTAN DEMOLITION COMPANY LLC,
et al.,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------x
PITMAN, United States Magistrate Judge:
I.
Introduction
This matter is before me on plaintiffs' application for
a default judgment and damages against defendants A.J.S. Management,
Inc.
("AJS")
and AJS Construction & Renovation Inc.
(collectively, the "AJS Defendants").
("C&R")
Plaintiffs and the AJS
Defendants have consented to my exercising plenary jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) . 1
On September 15, 2017,
I granted defense counsel's
motion to withdraw with the following admonition:
1
"because AJS
Plaintiffs have also moved for a default judgment against
remaining defendants, Spartan Demolition Company LLC ("Spartan")
and Marc Alleyne ("Alleyne").
However, Spartan and Alleyne have
never answered or appeared in this action.
Because Spartan and
Alleyne have not consented to my plenary jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(c), plaintiffs' motion as to these defendants is
addressed in a separate Report and Recommendation of even date.
and C&R are corporations and because corporations can appear in
an action only through counsel, it is imperative that corporate
defendants retain new counsel"
(Endorsed Order, dated Sept. 15,
2017
("Sept. 15 Order")
(Docket Item ("D.I.")
citations omitted)).
61)
(internal
I further warned that "[u]nless an attorney
enters an appearance on behalf of AJS and C&R no later than
October 15, 2017, it is my intention to enter a default judgment
against AJS and C&R as to all claims against them"
(Sept. 15
Order).
To date, the AJS Defendants have not obtained new
counsel.
Thus, pursuant to my Sept. 16 Order, I found the AJS
Defendants to be in default and issued a scheduling order on
January 2, 2018.
My Scheduling Order provided, in pertinent
part:
1.
Plaintiffs shall submit proposed findings of
fact and conclusions of law concerning the damages to
be assessed against AJS and C&R no later than February
27, 2018. All factual assertions made by plaintiffs
are to be supported by either affidavit or other material of evidentiary weight.
2. AJS and C&R shall submit their response to
plaintiffs' submissions, if any, no later than March
27, 2018.
IF AJS OR C&R (1) FAIL TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' SUBMISSIONS, OR (2) FAIL TO CONTACT MY CHAMBERS
BY MARCH 27, 2018 AND REQUEST AN IN-COURT HEARING, IT
IS MY INTENTION TO ISSUE A REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
CONCERNING DAMAGES ON THE BASIS OF PLAINTIFFS' WRITTEN
See
SUBMISSIONS ALONE WITHOUT AN IN-COURT HEARING.
Transatlantic Marine Claims Agency, Inc. v. Ace Shipping Corp., 109 F.3d 105, 111 (2d Cir. 1997); Fustok v.
ContiCommodity Services Inc., 873 F.2d 38, 40 (2d Cir.
1989) (" [I] t is not necessary for the District Court to
hold a hearing, as long as it ensured that there was a
2
basis for the damages specified in the default judgment.")
Plaintiffs timely submitted Proposed Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law on February 27, 2018
(Plaintiffs' Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law, dated Feb. 27, 2018
("Pl. Memo.")).
AJS Defendants.
(D.I. 72)
Copies of my Scheduling Order were mailed to the
To date, the AJS Defendants have not submitted
any materials with respect to this inquest, nor have they contacted my chambers in any way.
Accordingly, on the basis of
plaintiffs' submissions alone, I make the following findings of
fact and conclusions of law.
II.
Findings of Fact 2
A.
The Parties
1.
Plaintiffs Shreal Douglas, Joe Smith, Michael
Bautista, Eric Dupree and Shasheern Jones are former employees of
the AJS Defendants
(Amended Complaint, dated Apr. 24, 2017
4 8)
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?