Quizet Rivera et al v. Grill on 2nd LLC et al

Filing 124

ORDER Counsel for Plaintiffs shall be prepared to discuss the following issues, in addition to others, at the default judgment hearing scheduled for May 24, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Moreover, counsel who appears at the hearing must be sufficiently familiar with the case and the damages calculations advocated by Plaintiffs, and should be ready to answer detailed questions from the Court. (Signed by Judge John P. Cronan on 5/23/2021) (mhe)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
SAUL QUIZET RIVERA et al.,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
-v:
:
GRILL ON 2ND LLC et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

15-CV-6293 (JPC)
ORDER

JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge:
Counsel for Plaintiffs shall be prepared to discuss the following issues, in addition to others, at
the default judgment hearing scheduled for May 24, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Moreover, counsel who appears
at the hearing must be sufficiently familiar with the case and the damages calculations advocated by
Plaintiffs, and should be ready to answer detailed questions from the Court.
1.

Paragraph 105 of the Declaration of Michael Faillace, Esq. in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion
for Default Judgment, Dkt. 105 (“Faillace Declaration” or “Faillace Decl.”), states that
Plaintiff Rivera was paid $473.00 per week from March 2015 to June 2015. It is unclear
from the materials cited, see id. ¶ 44, how this figure was calculated. Counsel should be
prepared to provide the Court with a clear explanation of this calculation.

2.

The Faillace Declaration states that Plaintiff Perez was paid on a weekly basis. See id.
¶¶ 119-121. It appears that Plaintiffs assume that Perez was not paid overtime as part of
this weekly payment. See id. ¶¶ 119-121. The Faillace Declaration does not provide any
explanation for the basis of that assumption. Plaintiffs should be prepared to point the
Court to any relevant authority that support treating the weekly payments to Perez in the
manner advocated.

3.

Paragraph 129 of the Faillace Declaration calculates the total that Plaintiff Leal was
underpaid as $2,392. It appears this is an error as the actual total–based on the calculations
advocated in the Faillace Declaration—should be $2,324.

4.

Plaintiffs seek $10,000 per plaintiff in statutory damages. Id. ¶ 135. Plaintiffs shall be
prepared to explain why the Court should not in its discretion award a lower amount than
the maximum allowed under the applicable statutes.

5.

The Faillace Declaration requests $89,438.39 in damages and other penalties and $12,090
in attorneys’ fees and costs. Id. ¶ 144. But Plaintiffs’ proposed default judgment requests
damages and other penalties totaling a much higher figure. Dkt. 106. With regard to
attorneys’ fees, Plaintiffs’ proposed default judgment does not mention the $12,090 figure,
but instead requests either $20,680.60 or some other amount. See id. at 3. Similarly, the
Faillace Declaration mentions a lodestar amount of $20,680.60. Dkt. 105 ¶ 143.

6.

The proposed default judgment further requests $27,986 and $26,783.60 in damages for
Plaintiffs Rivera and Soto.

Dkt. 106 at 2.

Based on Plaintiffs’ calculations and

representations, it appears these figures should be $26,986 and $26,783.20, respectively.
Counsel should be prepared to explain the amounts sought for these Plaintiffs (and for the
other Plaintiffs) and be prepared to articulate the basis for all proposed damages
calculations.
All attorneys at Michael Faillace & Associates, P.C. are reminded of the importance of
proofreading submissions before filing them with the Court.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 23, 2021
New York, New York

__________________________________
JOHN P. CRONAN
United States District Judge

2