Elias Sanchez Gallego et al v. Adyar Ananda Bhavan Corp. et al
Filing
50
OPINION & ORDER re: 44 MOTION for Attorney Fees. MOTION for Reconsideration re; 43 Memorandum & Opinion. MOTION for Judgment filed by Raymundo Vazquez Angel, Miguel Elias Sanchez Gallego. For the for egoing reasons, the Court awards $27,020.75 in overtime damages for Plaintiff Angel, $11,343.75 in overtime damages for Plaintiff Gallego, $125 in minimum wage damages for Plaintiff Gallego, $5,403.75 in spread of hours damag es for Plaintiff Angel, $2,268.75 in spread of hours damages for Plaintiff Gallego, $32,424.50 in liquidated damages for Plaintiff Angel, $13,737.50 in liquidated damages for Plaintiff Gallego, $10,000 in statutory d amages for Plaintiff Angel, $7,150 in statutory damages for Plaintiff Gallego, $1,635.40 in costs, and $18,630 in attorneys' fees. The Court awards prejudgment interest at the rate of nine percent (9%) per annum simple i nterest. For Plaintiff Angel, the prejudgment interest should be calculated from July 8, 2015. And for Plaintiff Gallego, the prejudgment interest should be calculated from August 14, 2015. Pursuant to NYLL, the Court holds that "if any amounts [of damages awarded under the NYLL] remain unpaid upon the expiration of ninety days following issuance of judgment, or ninety days after expiration of the time to appeal and no appeal is then pending, whichever is later, the total am ount of judgment shall automatically increase by fifteen percent." NYLL § 198(4). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment and close this case. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 1/8/2019) (mro) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Miguel Elias Sanchez Gallego et al.,
Plaintiffs,
16-CV-4631 (AJN)
-vOPINION & ORDER
Adyar Ananda Bhavean Corp., et al.,
Defendants.
ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
I.
Background
The Court assumes familiarity with this case, which was the subject of an earlier Opinion
& Order issued after a bench trial. See Gallego v. Adyar Ananda Bhavean Corp., No. 16-CV4631(AJN),2018 WL 4735710 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2018). In short, Plaintiffs Miguel Elias
Sanchez Gallego and Raymundo Vazquez Angel brought this action against their former
employer, the Indian restaurant Adyar Ananda Bhavan, which is owned and operated by
corporate Defendant Adyar Ananda Bhavan Corp. ("Restaurant Defendant") and managed and
supervised by individual Defendant Anitha Gounder ("Owner Defendant"), who owns the
corporation. Plaintiffs brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"), 29
U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), §§ 190 et seq.
The Court concluded that Plaintiffs had met their burden of proof with respect to their
spread of hours claim, their wage and notice statements claim, and some aspects of their claim
for unpaid wages. See Gallego, 2018 WL 4735710 at *l. Plaintiffs had not met their burden of
proof with respect to the remaining claims with the exception of the overtime claim, for which
1
the Court asked for supplemental briefing. Id The Court reserved judgment pending
supplemental briefing on the overtime claim, the damages calculation, prejudgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs. Id
On October 15, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their supplemental brief. Dkt. Nos. 44-47. In their
brief, Plaintiffs also asked the Court to reconsider its minimum wage findings. See Dkt. No. 45
("Pl. Br.") at 6-8. On October 26, 2018, Defendants filed their response to Plaintiffs brief. Dkt.
No. 48 ("Def. Br.). And on November 5, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a reply memorandum oflaw.
Dkt. No. 49.
The Court now addresses the outstanding issues in this case.
II.
Damages
A.
Tip Credit
The Court first addresses a threshold issue that impacts the overtime damages calculation,
and whether Plaintiffs are actually entitled to certain minimum wage damages. Defendants argue
that the Court should credit the tip money that Plaintiffs earned to determine whether the proper
amount of weekly money, including overtime, was paid to Plaintiffs. Def. Br. at 3. Under the
FLSA, "an employer may pay a tipped employee a cash wage that is lower than the statutory
minimum wage, provided that, inter alia, the cash wage and the employee's tips, taken together,
are at least equivalent to the minimum wage." Hernandez v. Jrpac Inc., No. 14-CV:-4176 (PAE),
2016 WL 3248493, at *23 (S.D.N.Y. June 9, 2016) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see
Shahriar v. Smith & Wollensky Rest. Grp., Inc., 659 F.3d 234, 240 (2d Cir. 2011). The FLSA
provides that the tip credit "shall not apply with respect to any tipped employee unless [1] such
employee has been informed by the employer of the [statute's tip credit] provisions, and [2] all
tips received by such employee have been retained by the employee." 29 U.S.C. § 203(m). The
2
"tip credit" provision has been "strictly construed," and "an employer may not take a tip credit
unless it complies strictly with both statutory requirements." Chan v. Sung Yue Tung Corp., No.
3-CV-6048 (GEL), 2007 WL 313483, at *17 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2007), abrogated on other
grounds by Barenboim v. Starbucks Corp., 698 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2012). NYLL requires an
employer who intends to pay an employee with a tip-credit rate to provide written notice to the
employee. 12 NYCRR §§146-1.3; 146-2.2; see Hernandez, 2016 WL 3248493, at *25. "An
employer that fails to comply with the notice requirements under the NYLL may not utilize the
tip credit to satisfy its minimum wage and overtime obligations." Id. Defendants are correct that
the Court generally did credit Defendants' record of what Plaintiffs were paid in tips. See
Gallego, 2018 WL 4735710 at *2. However, Defendants provided no evidence at trial that they
informed Plaintiffs of their intent to pay them at a tip credit rate. Nor do they make any
argument in their briefs that they affirmatively informed Plaintiffs of the tip credit. And, under
NYLL, Defendants would have had to have provided Plaintiffs with written notice of the tip
credit-and the Court already concluded that Plaintiffs were not provided with wage and notice
statements. Id. at *7. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the tip credit cannot be applied.
The Court now calculates overtime damages, and addresses Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration
on the minimum wage calculation, in light of this finding.
B.
Overtime
The Court concludes that Mr. Gallego and Mr. Angel are entitled to overtime damages.
Under both FLSA and NYLL, an employee must be paid at the rate of one and one-half times the
employee's regular hourly rate for each hour the employee works in excess of 40 hours in a
given workweek. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(2)(C); NYCRR § 146-1.4. Under the FLSA, there is a
rebuttable presumption that a weekly salary covers 40 hours worked in a week. See Hernandez,
3
2016 WL 3248493, at *33; Moon v. Kwon, 248 F.Supp.2d 201, 207-08 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). And
under NYLL, the regular rate for a restaurant employee who is not paid on an hourly basis is
determined by "dividing the employee's total weekly earnings, not including exclusions from the
regular rate, by the lesser of 40 hours or the actual number of hours worked by that employee
during the work week." 12 NYCRR §146-3.5. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' regular rate of pay is
calculated by dividing their weekly pay by 40 hours. 1
Additionally, "[u]nder both the FLSA and NYLL, all of the time worked during a
continuous workday is compensable, save for bona fide meal breaks." Hernandez, 2016 WL
3248493, at *27; 29 C.F.R. § 785.19(a) ("Bona fide meal periods are not worktime."). For a
break to qualify, the employee "must be completely relieved from duty for the purposes of eating
regular meals." Id. "Ordinarily 30 minutes or more is long enough for a bona fide meal period,"
id., but "[r]est periods of short duration, running from 5 minutes to about 20 minutes ... are
customarily paid for as working time [and] must be counted as hours worked." 29 C.F.R. §
785.18. "It is not necessary that an employee be permitted to leave the premises ifhe is
otherwise completely freed from duties during the meal period." 29 C.F.R. § 785.19(b). Under
NYLL, "[w]orking time means ... time an employee is required to be available for work at a
place ... prescribed by the employer such that the employee is unable to use the time
productively for his or her own purpose." 12 NYCRR § 146-3.6.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that Mr. Gallego and Mr. Angel each worked 60 hours
per week. This is calculated by multiplying the 10.5 hours they worked per day, 6 days a week,
1
The Court does not need to address whether Defendants have rebutted the presumption under the FLSA
that the weekly salary was intended to cover 40 hours of work, and instead should cover the total hours Plaintiffs
worked each week. As discussed, under the NYLL, a weekly salary is automatically divided by 40 hours to
determine the regular rate of pay. 12 NYCRR § 146-3 .5. Because a plaintiff cannot recover unpaid wages under
each statute, it is unnecessary to calculate these damages under the FLSA, as the NYLL will provide Plaintiffs with
a greater recovery.
4
and then subtracting 3 hours per week for the 45 minutes breaks they received 4 days per week.
The 15 minute breaks on Saturdays and Sundays are not subtracted. See Hernandez, 2016 WL
3248493, at *27. Therefore, Plaintiffs each are entitled to 20 hours of overtime per week. The
Court concludes that Plaintiffs are owed the following in overtime damages.
For Mr. Angel:
Weekly Rate
Regular Rate
Overtime Rate
Overtime
Overtime
Paid
of Pay
(1.5 times
Owed Per
Owed Over
Regular Rate)
Time Period
Week
Time
Period
8/6/14-
$325
$8.125
$12.1875
$243.75
(17 weeks)
12/1/14
12/2/14-
$350
$8.75
$13.125
$262.50
$375
$9.375
$14.0625
$281.25
$1,125 (4
weeks)
5/19/15
5/20/15-
$5,250 (20
weeks)
4/22/15
4/23/15-
$4,144.75
$400
$10
$15
$300
$16,500
(55 weeks)
6/8/16
Mr. Angel is therefore owed $27,020.75 in overtime. For Mr. Gallego:
Time Period
Weekly Rate
Regular Rate
Overtime Rate
Overtime
Overtime
Paid
of Pay
(1.5 times
Owed Per
Owed Over
Regular Rate)
Week
Time
Period
5
8/14/15-
$325
$8.125
$12.1875
$243.75
9/17/15
9/18/15-
(5 weeks)
$350
$8.75
$13.125
$262.50
5/14/16
5/15/16-
$1,218.75
$8,925 (34
weeks)
$400
$10
$15
6/7/16
$300
$1200 (4
weeks)
Mr. Gallego is therefore owed $11,343.75 in overtime.
C.
Minimum Wage
Plaintiffs ask the Court to reconsider its conclusion that Plaintiffs were paid at least the
minimum wage rate each week. PL Br. at 6-8. The Court agrees that, in light of its finding on
the tip credit, Mr. Gallego is owed minimum wage damages for the August and September 2015
work period. As noted above, between August and September 2015, Mr. Gallego was paid a rate
of $8.125 per hour for his regular wages. At that time, under NYLL, the minimum wage was
$8.75 an hour. See Gallego, 2018 WL 4735710 at *5 (citing NYLL § 652). Mr. Gallego is
therefore owed $125 ($0.625 times 40 hours per week times 5 weeks) in minimum wage
damages for this time period.
D.
Spread of Hours
The Court concluded that Plaintiffs were entitled to spread of hours damages. See
Gallego, 2018 WL 4735710, at *7. Under NYLL, on each day in which the beginning and end
of the workday are more than 10 hours apart, a worker is entitled to "one additional hour of pay
at the basic minimum hourly rate." NYCRR § 146-1.6. This provision applies regardless of the
employee's hourly salary. Id.; see Tapia v. Blch 3rd Ave. LLC, No. 14-CV-8529 (AJN), 2016
6
WL 4581341, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2016), ajj"d sub nom. Tapia v. Blch 3rd Ave LLC, 906
F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 2018). Accordingly, Plaintiffs are each entitled to the following in spread of
hours damages.
For Mr. Angel:
Regular Rate of
Days Worked
Spread of Hours
Spread of Hours
Pay
Time Period
Per Week
Owed Per Week
Owed Over
Time Period
8/6/14-12/1/14
$8.125
6
$48.75
$828.75 (17
weeks)
12/2/14-4/22/15
$8.75
6
$52.5
$1,050 (20
weeks)
4/23/15-5/19/15
$9.375
6
$56.25
$225 (4 weeks)
5/20/15-6/8/16
$10
6
$60
$3,300 (55
weeks)
Mr. Angel is therefore owed $5,403.75 in spread of hours damages. For Mr. Gallego:
Time Period
Regular Rate of
Days Worked
Spread of Hours
Spread of Hours
Pay
Per Week
Owed Per Week
Owed Over
Owed Over
Time Period
8/14/15-9/17/15
$8.125
6
$48.75
$243.75 (5
weeks)
9/18/15-5/14/16
$8.75
$52.5
6
7
$1,785 (34
weeks)
5/15/16-6/7/16
$10
$60
6
$240 (4 weeks)
Mr. Gallego is therefore owed $2,268.75 in spread of hours damages.
E.
Liquidated Damages
The Court concluded that Plaintiffs were also entitled to one set of liquidated damages for
unpaid overtime and minimum wages. Gallego, 2018 WL 4735710, at *8; see also Tapia v. Blch
3rd Ave LLC, 906 F.3d 58, 61 (2d Cir. 2018) (concluding it is appropriate to award only one set
ofliquidated damages under the FLSA and NYLL). Therefore, Mr. Angel is entitled to
$32,424.50 ($27,020.75 plus $5,403.75) in liquidated damages, and Mr. Gallego is entitled to
$13,737.50 ($11,343.75 plus $125 plus $2,268.75) in liquidated damages.
F.
Wage and Notice Statements
The Court concluded that Plaintiffs were entitled to two forms of statutory damages. See
Gallego, 2018 WL 4735710, at *7. During the relevant period, NYLL § 195(l)(a) required
employers to provide employees with notices informing them of their rate of pay at the time of
hiring and on or before February 1 of each subsequent year of employment. An employee who
does not receive a wage notice within 10 business days of his first day of employment is entitled
to recover $50 for each week of work that the violations occurred, up to a maximum of $5,000.
NYLL § 198(1-b) (eff. Apr. 9, 2011 to Feb. 27, 2015); Perez v. Platinum Plaza 400 Cleaners,
Inc., No. 12-CV-9353 (PAC), 2015 WL 1881080, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2015) (citing 2014
N.Y. Sess. Laws Ch. 537 (A.8106-C) (McKinney's), amending NYLL § 198(1-b) to allow for
$50 per day with a cap of $5,000). Accordingly, Mr. Angel is entitled to $5,000 ($50 a week for
a maximum of 100 weeks), and Mr. Gallego is entitled to $2,150 ($50 times 43 weeks) under this
8
provision.
A second provision, NYLL § 195(3), required employers to provide employees with a
wage statement with each payment of wages. An employee who does not receive such
statements can recover $100 per day of violation, up to a maximum of $5,000. NYLL §198(1-d).
Accordingly, Mr. Gallego and Mr. Angel are each entitled to $5,000 under this provision.
G.
Prejudgment Interest
Under the NYLL, the Court must award prejudgment interest in addition to liquidated
damages. NYLL § 198(1-a) ("In any action instituted in the courts upon a wage claim by an
employee ... in which the employee prevails, the court shall allow such employee to recover ...
prejudgment interest as required under the civil practice law and rules, and ... an additional
amount as liquidated damages ... "); §663(1) (same). The New York prejudgment interest rate
applies. McLean v. Garage Mgmt. Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55425, *28, 2012 WL
1358739 (S.D.N.Y. April 19, 2012). Under N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5004, prejudgment interest runs at
the rate of nine percent (9%) per annum simple interest. Id.
When claims that are reduced to judgment have arisen on different dates, the Court may
compute prejudgment interest from an appropriate single median date. See McLean v. Garage
Mgmt. Corp., No. 9-CV-9325 (DLC), 2012 WL 1358739, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 19, 2012)
("prejudgment interest on the plaintiffs' NYLL unpaid overtime wage damages shall be
computed at a rate of nine (9) percent per annum from a single reasonable intermediate date").
Thus, prejudgment interest on Plaintiffs' back pay awards should be computed from the median
of each relevant period to the date of judgment. For Mr. Angel, it should be calculated from July
8, 2015. And for Mr. Gallego it should be calculated from August 14, 2015.
III.
Attorneys' Fees
9
A.
Legal Standard
"Reasonable attorney's fees and costs are awarded as a matter of right to a prevailing
plaintiff in an action under the FLSA or NYLL." Francois v. Mazer, 523 F. App'x 28, 29 (2d
Cir. 2013) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); NYLL §§ 198(1-a), 663(1)); see also Galeana v.
Lemongrass on Broadway Corp., 120 F. Supp. 3d 306, 323 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). The FLSA
provides that "[a]ny employer who violates the provisions of section 206 or section 207 of this
title shall be liable to the employee or employees affected in the amount of ... a reasonable
attorney's fee to be paid by the defendant, and costs of the action." 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
Similarly, NYLL provides that "[i]n any action instituted in the courts upon a wage claim by an
employee or the commissioner in which the employee prevails, the court shall allow such
employee to recover ... all reasonable attorney's fees." NYLL § 198(1-a).
To determine the amount of attorney's fees that should be awarded, a court must
calculate the "presumptively reasonable fee." Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood
Ass'n v. Cnty. ofAlbany, 522 F.3d 182, 183 (2d Cir. 2008); Quiroz v. Luigi's Dolceria, Inc., No.
14-CV-871(VVP),2016 WL 6311868, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2016). "[T]he 'presumptively
reasonable fee' ... is generally arrived at by multiplying 'the number of hours reasonably
expended on the litigation ... by a reasonable hourly rate.'" Gortat v. Capala Brothers, Inc.,
621 F. App'x 19, 22 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983)).
The Court should also examine whether there are other "case-specific considerations" that
warrant an adjustment. See Arbor Hills, 522 F.3d at 186; Sevilla v. Nekasa Inc., No. 16-CV2368 (AJP), 2017 WL 1185572, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2017). Overall, a "reasonable" fee is
one "that is sufficient to induce a capable attorney to undertake the representation of a
meritorious [FLSA] case." Sevilla, 2017 WL 1185572, at *3 (quoting Perdue v. Kenny A., 559
10
U.S. 542, 551-53 (2010)); see also Gortat, 621 F. App'x at 22; Arbor Hills, 522 F.3d at 190.
"An application for attorneys fees in this Circuit must be accompanied by contemporaneous
billing records for each attorney documenting the date, the hours expended, and the nature of the
work." Quiroz, 2016 WL 6311868, at *2 (citing Scott v. City of New York, 643 F.3d 56, 57 (2d
Cir. 2011)).
Plaintiffs have submitted contemporaneous billing records reflecting the work of two
lawyers -Michael Faillace (a partner), Joshua Androphy (a senior associate). The firm that
represented Plaintiffs in this case, Michael Faillace & Associates, P.C., billed hourly rates at
$450 for Mr. Faillace, and $400 for Mr. Androphy. Id. These records reflect that Plaintiffs'
attorneys spent 52.60 hours on the case and billed, in total, $21,260, and incurred $1,635.40 in
costs. Dkt. No. 49 at 3; Dkt. No. 49-1at1-4. Defendants do not oppose any of Plaintiffs'
motion for attorneys' fees and costs, merely noting that they "leave the proprietary of the request
to the sound discretion of this Court." Def. Br. at 4. The Court now turns to examining whether
the hours and work reflected in these records are reasonable.
B.
The Hourly Rates Are Excessive
In calculating the presumptively reasonable fee, the Court should examine whether the
hourly rates billed by Plaintiffs' counsel are reasonable. See Gortat, 621 F. App'x at 22. A
"reasonable hourly rate is the rate a paying client would be willing to pay." Arbor Hills, 522
F.3d at 190. The Court concludes that the hourly rates for the attorneys should be reduced.
Courts in this Circuit have repeatedly described the hourly rates requested here as
"excessive" or "high." See, e.g., Tapia v. Blch 3rd Ave. LLC, No. 14-CV-8529 (AJN), Dkt. No.
101 at 5-7; Sevilla, 2017 WL 1185572, at *5 (finding Mr. Faillace's $450 requested hourly rate
"excessive"); Lopez v. SGRA Corp., No. CV 2014-5225 (SJ) (MDG), 2016 WL 8711350, at *10
11
(E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2016) ("The hourly rate of$450 sought by plaintiff for Mr. Faillace and
$400 for Mr. Androphy's work are above the general range of rates received by similarly
experienced attorneys in this district."); Gonzalez v. Jane Roe Inc., No. 10 CV
lOOO(NGG)(RML), 2015 WL 4662490, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. July 15, 2015) ("Here, plaintiff has
requested an hourly rate of $450 for Mr. Faillace, who has been the Managing Member of
Michael Faillace & Associates, P.C. since 1983, and $400 for associate Joshua S. Androphy ...
'[T]hose rates are excessive.").
As this case presented relatively straightforward FLSA and NYLL issues, the Court finds
a reduction of the requested hourly rates appropriate. See Watkins v. Smith, No. 12-cv-4635
(DLC), 2015 WL 476867, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2015) ("Rates generally fall to the lower end
of the spectrum ... when the case presents only straightforward issues."); cf Najera, 2017 WL
728703, at *2 (approving hourly rates at the higher end of the spectrum given "the complexity of
th[ e] litigation and the favorable results obtained").
In accordance with the rates generally approved of by other district courts in this Circuit,
the Court reduces Mr. Faillace's rate to $400 per hour and Mr. Androphy's rate to $350 per hour.
See Tapia v. Blch 3rd Ave. LLC, No. 14-CV-8529 (AJN), Dkt. No. 101 at n.2, n.3 (collecting
cases).
C.
The Hours Expended is Reasonable
Next, the Court analyzes "whether the amount of hours billed is reasonable." Sevilla,
2017 WL 1185572, at *6. "A court has broad discretion to 'trim the fat' in an application for
attorneys' fees, and to eliminate excessive or duplicative hours." Quiroz, 2016 WL 6311868, at
*3 (citing Kirsch v. Fleet Street, Ltd., 148 F.3d 149, 173 (2d. Cir. 1988)). "The critical inquiry is
whether, at the time the work was performed, a reasonable attorney would have engaged in
12
similar time expenditures." Sevilla, 2017 WL 1185572, at *6 (citations and quotation marks
omitted). Here, Plaintiffs seek reimbursement for 52.60 hours litigating this case. Dkt. No. 49-1
at 1-4. Mr. Faillace worked for 4.4 hours on the case, and Mr. Androphy worked for 48.2 hours
on the case. See id. The tasks completed by Plaintiffs' counsel include, inter alia, preparing the
complaint, preparing and reviewing discovery, conducting depositions, engaging in settlement
discussions, prepping witnesses for trial, and the trial itself. See id. Given all of this, the Court
finds the requested hours reasonable. See Tapia v. Blch 3rd Ave. LLC, No. 14-CV-8529 (AJN),
Dkt. No. 101at7-9 (collecting cases with comparable tasks and approval of comparable
attorneys' fees).
D.
Reasonable Costs
Plaintiffs seek $1,635.40 in costs. Dkt. No. 49 at 3; Dkt. No. 49-1 at 1-4. These costs
include a $400 filing fee, $40 in service fees, $495 .40 in deposition fees, and $700 in interpreter
fees. See Dkt. No. 49-1 at 1-4. The Court finds the requested costs reasonable and supported by
the record. See Tapia v. Blch 3rd Ave. LLC, No. 14-CV-8529 (AJN), Dkt. No. 101at9;
Hernandez, 2017 WL 66325, at *2; Febus v. Guardian First Funding Group, LLC, 870 F. Supp.
2d 337, 341 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).
The Court therefore concludes that Plaintiffs are entitled to $1,635.40 in costs, and
$18,630 in attorneys' fees (4.4 hours times $400, plus 48.2 hours times $350).
IV.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court awards $27,020.75 in overtime damages for Plaintiff
Angel, $11,343. 7 5 in overtime damages for Plaintiff Gallego, $125 in minimum wage damages
for Plaintiff Gallego, $5,403.75 in spread of hours damages for Plaintiff Angel, $2,268.75 in
spread of hours damages for Plaintiff Gallego, $32,424.50 in liquidated damages for Plaintiff
13
Angel, $13,737.50 in liquidated damages for Plaintiff Gallego, $10,000 in statutory damages for
Plaintiff Angel, $7,150 in statutory damages for Plaintiff Gallego, $1,635.40 in costs, and
$18,630 in attorneys' fees. The Court awards prejudgment interest at the rate of nine percent
(9%) per annum simple interest. For Plaintiff Angel, the prejudgment interest should be
calculated from July 8, 2015. And for Plaintiff Gallego, the prejudgment interest should be
calculated from August 14, 2015. Pursuant to NYLL, the Court holds that "if any amounts [of
damages awarded under the NYLL] remain unpaid upon the expiration of ninety days following
issuance of judgment, or ninety days after expiration of the time to appeal and no appeal is then
pending, whichever is later, the total amount of judgment shall automatically increase by fifteen
percent." NYLL § 198(4). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment and
close this case.
SO ORDERED.
t
Dated: January
2019
New York, New York
United States District Judge
14
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?