Zhu et al v. A Plus Kitchen Inc. et al

Filing 62

ORDER for 61 Report and Recommendations. Accordingly, I ADOPT the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, and Plaintiff's application for a default judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff Zhu is awarded $67,346.62 and Plaintiff Cheung i s awarded $42,889.16. Plaintiffs are also awarded $20,197.50 in attorney's fees plus an additional $1,114.40 in costs. The Clerk's Office is respectfully directed to terminate any open motions, to enter judgment in accordance with this Order, and to close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 9/23/2020) (rro) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------- X
:
GUANT PING ZHU, et al.,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
- against :
:
A PLUS KITCHEN, INC., et al.,
:
:
Defendants. :
:
--------------------------------------------------------- X

9/23/2020

16-cv-5767 (VSB) (KNF)
ORDER

VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge:
On July 19, 2016, Plaintiffs Guang Ping Zhu (“Zhu”) and Chi How Cheung (“Cheung”)
commenced this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the “FLSA”) against Defendants A
Plus Kitchen, Inc. (“A Plus Kitchen”), “John Doe” Zheng, and various other John Does, by filing
a complaint. (Doc. 1.) A Plus Kitchen and Zheng filed an answer through counsel on August
17, 2016. (Doc. 9.) On August 24, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint against A
Plus Kitchen, Zheng Cun Zheng (“Zheng” and together with A Plus Kitchen, the “Named
Defendants”), and ten other John Does. (Doc. 25.) On September 6, 2017, the Named
Defendants entered into a stipulation with Plaintiffs by which they conceded liability as to
certain counts of the first amended complaint. (Doc. 27.) Defendants’ counsel filed a motion to
withdraw, (Doc. 23), which I granted, (Doc. 28.) On October 30, 2017, Plaintiffs submitted a
letter stating that the Named Defendants had informed Plaintiffs that they intended to default in
this action, (Doc. 31). On October 30, 2018, Plaintiffs applied for and obtained a Clerk’s
Certificate of Default, (see Docs. 40–45), then filed a proposed order to show cause for a default
judgment, along with declarations and exhibits in support, (Docs. 46–49.) I issued the Order to
Show Cause, (Doc. 50), which was duly served on the Named Defendants, (Doc. 51). The

Named Defendants did not appear at the show cause hearing on December 7, 2018, and on
December 9, 2018, I issued an order entering their default. I referred the case to Magistrate
Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox for an inquest on damages, on December 10, 2018. (Doc. 52.)
Plaintiffs submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, along with a memorandum
of law, declarations, and exhibits in support, (Docs. 56–59.) Magistrate Judge Fox issued his
Report and Recommendation on May 29, 2019, recommending that I award the following
damages to Plaintiffs: (1) $67,346.62 to Zhu; (2) $42,889.16 to Cheung; (3) $20,197.50 in
attorney’s fees; and (4) $1,114.40 in costs. (Doc. 61, at 12.) Neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants
filed an objection to the Report.
In reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, 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)(1). Parties may raise specific, written objections to the
report and recommendation within 14 days of being served with a copy of the report. Id.; see
also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). When a party submits a timely objection, a district court reviews
de novo the parts of the report and recommendation to which the party objected. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). When neither party submits an objection to a
report and recommendation, or any portion thereof, a district court reviews the report and
recommendation for clear error. Santana v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 17-CV-2648 (VSB)
(BCM), 2019 WL 2326214, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2019); Marte v. Berryhill, No. 17-CV-3567
(VSB) (JLC), 2018 WL 5255170, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2018); Lewis v. Zon, 573 F. Supp. 2d
804, 811 (S.D.N.Y. 2008); Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169
(S.D.N.Y. 2003).
Here, although the Report and Recommendation explicitly provided that “[t]he parties

2

shall have fourteen (14) days from service of this Report to file written objections,” (Doc. 61, at
13), neither party filed an objection. I therefore reviewed Magistrate Judge Fox’s thorough and
well-reasoned Report and Recommendation for clear error and, after careful review, found none.
Accordingly, I ADOPT the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, and Plaintiff’s
application for a default judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff Zhu is awarded $67,346.62 and
Plaintiff Cheung is awarded $42,889.16. Plaintiffs are also awarded $20,197.50 in attorney’s
fees plus an additional $1,114.40 in costs.
The Clerk’s Office is respectfully directed to terminate any open motions, to enter
judgment in accordance with this Order, and to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 23, 2020
New York, New York
______________________
Vernon S. Broderick
United States District Judge

3