Lemus v. Pezzementi et al
Filing
105
ORDER: Accordingly, if Defendants seek to have the Court consider any of these documents, they must provide properly authenticated copies, as well as a sworn statement explaining the information reflected in Defendants payroll records for Plaintiff. The parties must serve and file their supplemental inquest submissions by no later than Friday, July 1, 2022. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause on 6/2/2022) (tg)
Case 7:15-cv-05592-NSR-AEK Document 105 Filed 06/02/22 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
RAMIRO LEMUS, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
15-cv-5592 (NSR) (AEK)
ORDER
- against TODD PEZZEMENTI and NORTHERN TREE
SERVICE,
Defendants.
THE HONORABLE ANDREW E. KRAUSE, U.S.M.J.
This matter is currently before the Court for an inquest on damages. ECF No. 77. 1 The
Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s submission in support of an award of damages, ECF No. 91, and
Defendants’ submissions in opposition thereto, ECF Nos. 101-102, and has found deficiencies
with both. Accordingly, so that there can be a clearer and more complete record, the Court will
provide the parties with an opportunity to file supplemental submissions concerning the amount
of damages that Plaintiff should be awarded in connection with Defendants’ default.
Plaintiff’s submission does not provide sufficient information regarding the overall
damages that he seeks. The supplemental submission must include the exact dollar amount that
he seeks with respect to each of his remaining claims and how Plaintiff arrived at those proposed
damages amounts. 2 As regards the assault and battery claim, to the extent that Plaintiff purports
1
The case originally was referred to Magistrate Judge Lisa Margaret Smith, and was
reassigned to the undersigned on October 15, 2020.
2
Judge Román’s January 10, 2020 Opinion and Order in this matter indicated that
Plaintiff was eligible to receive damages for “Defendants’ violations of the overtime provisions
of the [New York Labor Law] and [Fair Labor Standards Act], Defendants’ violations of the
wage notice provisions of the [New York Wage Theft Prevention Act], Defendants’ failure to
Case 7:15-cv-05592-NSR-AEK Document 105 Filed 06/02/22 Page 2 of 3
to rely on medical records in connection with his claim for damages, the medical records that he
has submitted are not properly authenticated and cannot be considered by the Court in their
current form. See, e.g., Jordonne v. Ole Bar & Grill, Inc., No. 13-cv-1573 (VB) (JCM), 2016
WL 3409088, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2016) (medical records submitted in connection with an
inquest on damages which were not properly authenticated were “inadmissible hearsay
documents [that] cannot be considered in the Court’s damages determination”), adopted by 2016
WL 3360524 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2016). If Plaintiff seeks to have the Court consider these
documents, he must submit proper authentication for them. Moreover, if Plaintiff is seeking
damages for pain and suffering in connection with his assault and battery claim, he must provide
the Court with citations to analogous cases in which awards of such damages have been
approved in order to facilitate the Court’s evaluation. Finally, to support Plaintiff’s claim for an
award of attorneys’ fees and costs, counsel must submit (1) a proper attorneys’ fee application
sufficient to support a lodestar calculation, including contemporaneous time records and
documentation regarding counsel’s level of experience and hourly rates; and (2) documentary
support for the claimed expenses for service of process, mileage, and a deposition transcript.
Defendants’ current submission attempts to contest Plaintiff’s claim that he worked 50-55
hours per week and was not paid overtime, but the payroll records that Defendants have
submitted to the Court are also not authenticated and cannot be considered without proper
authentication. See, e.g., Chadha v. Chadha, No. 16-cv-3739 (ENV) (AKT), 2020 WL 1031385,
pay Plaintiff for his final week of work, and Defendant [Todd Pezzementi’s] assault and battery
of Plaintiff, and into the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs due to Plaintiff.” Lemus v.
Pezzementi, No. 15-cv-5592 (NSR), 2020 WL 133591, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2020). Though
Plaintiff’s original inquest submission attempts to seek damages for Defendants’ alleged
violation of Section 50 of the New York Workers’ Compensation Law, Judge Román made clear
that Plaintiff is not entitled to damages based on this theory. See id. at *5.
2
Case 7:15-cv-05592-NSR-AEK Document 105 Filed 06/02/22 Page 3 of 3
at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2020) (in calculating damages after default, court declined to consider
ledger that “was not attached to any signed declaration attesting to its authenticity and accuracy”
and “thus . . . is not admissible”). Furthermore, the payroll records only provide information
concerning the dollar amounts, and dates on which, Plaintiff was allegedly paid. They do not
establish how many days per week or hours per day Plaintiff worked or what his hourly wage
was. Finally, while Defendants purport to provide “true and accurate copies of Lemus’s W-2
statements” from 2014, see ECF No. 101 ¶ 7, those statements were not attached to the document
that was filed with the Court. Accordingly, if Defendants seek to have the Court consider any of
these documents, they must provide properly authenticated copies, as well as a sworn statement
explaining the information reflected in Defendants’ payroll records for Plaintiff.
The parties must serve and file their supplemental inquest submissions by no later than
Friday, July 1, 2022.
Dated: June 2, 2022
White Plains, New York
SO ORDERED,
__________________________________________
ANDREW E. KRAUSE
United States Magistrate Judge
3
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?