Guarcas v. Gourmet Heaven, LLC, et al

Filing 57

ORDER granting 55 Motion for Summary Judgment and directing Plaintiff to supplement the record regarding the attorneys' fee request on or before 10/09/2020. So Ordered by District Judge William E. Smith on 9/10/2020. (Jackson, Ryan)

Case 1:15-cv-00056-WES-PAS Document 57 Filed 09/10/20 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 554

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
PEDRO GUARCAS, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
C.A. No. 15-056 WES
v.
)
)
GOURMET HEAVEN, LLC, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________)
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment,
ECF No. 55.

Defendant did not file an opposition. For the reasons

discussed herein, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED.
I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Pedro Guarcas, Edgar Orellana, Robert Quinilla,
Pedro Us, Domingo Aj, Bairon Lopez, Rafael Hernandez, and Edgar
Vargas worked at Gourmet Heaven, owned and operated by Defendant
Chung Cho. Pls.’ Local Rule 56(a) Statement of Undisputed Facts
(“Pls.’ SUF”) ¶¶ 1, 3, ECF No. 55-2.

Plaintiffs’ duties involved

stocking shelves and preparing foods. Id. ¶¶ 8, 13, 18, 25, 30,
36, 41, 45.

All Plaintiffs were hourly employees and were paid by

a combination of payroll check and cash.

Mem. of Law in Supp. of

Pls.’ Mot. for Summ. J. (“Pls’ Mot. Summ. J.”) 2, ECF No. 55-1;
Pls.’ SUF ¶¶ 10-17, 19, 21-23, 27-29, 33-35, 38-40, 42-44, 47-49.
They each allege that Defendant Cho

1

violated the Fair Labor

Case 1:15-cv-00056-WES-PAS Document 57 Filed 09/10/20 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 555

Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the Rhode Island Minimum Wage Act
(“RIMWA”) by failing to pay minimum wages and overtime pay. Pls.’
Mot. Summ. J. 2.

Plaintiffs seek damages in the form of unpaid

minimum wage and overtime pay under the FLSA and RIMWA, liquidated
damages pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and R.I. Gen. Laws § 2814-19.2(a), and reasonable attorneys’ fees. Pl. Mot. Summ. J. 89, 16-20.
II.

DISCUSSION

A court shall grant a motion for summary judgment when the
movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

However, an unopposed motion for summary

judgment is not granted as a matter of form.

Sanchez-Figueroa v.

Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, 527 F.3d 209, 212 (1st Cir. 2008).
This Court must still “consider the motion on the merits, in light
of the record constituted, in order to determine whether judgment
would be legally appropriate.”

Aguiar-Carrasquillo v. Agosto-

Alicea, 445 F.3d 19, 25 (1st Cir. 2006)(citations omitted).
Furthermore, Defendant has failed to dispute any of the
factual allegations in Plaintiffs’ Statement of Undisputed Fact;
as such, those facts are deemed admitted. See DRI LR 56(a)(3) (“For
purposes of a motion for summary judgment, any fact alleged in the
movant’s Statement of Undisputed Facts shall be deemed admitted
unless expressly denied or otherwise controverted by a party
2

Case 1:15-cv-00056-WES-PAS Document 57 Filed 09/10/20 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 556

objecting to the motion.”); see also Schiffman v. United States,
811 F.3d 519, 525 (1st Cir. 2016) (“[F]ailure [to contest or deny
undisputed facts] has consequences . . . . The [nonmovant’s]
failure meant that all of the facts set forth in the [movant’s]
statement of undisputed facts were deemed admitted.”)
“The FLSA guarantees covered employees a minimum wage of $7.25
an hour, 29 U.S.C. § 206(a), and payment of one-and-one-half times
their regular rate for hours worked in excess of forty in any
workweek.”
2012).

Pruell v. Caritas Christi, 678 F.3d 10, 12 (1st Cir.

An employer who violates the FLSA is liable for damages in

the amount of unpaid wages and liquidated damages.
§ 216(b).

See 29 U.S.C.

Similarly, under the RIMWA, an employer who pays less

than minimum wage or time and one-half for overtime hours is liable
for compensatory damages and liquidated damages. See R.I. Gen.
Laws §§ 28-12-3, 4.1; § 28-14-19.2.
After considering all of the relevant documents, including
affidavits submitted by each Plaintiff, the Court finds that
Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
R. Civ. P. 56(a).

See Fed.

According to Plaintiffs Statement of Undisputed

Facts and the accompanying affidavits, all Plaintiffs worked in
excess of forty hours each week and were paid amounts in cash
ranging from $320 to $470.

See Pls.’ SUF ¶¶ 9-10, 14-15, 19-21,

26-29, 31-33, 37-39, 41-44, 46-47; see generally Aff. of Domingo
Aj, ECF No. 55-4; Aff. of Pedro Guarcas, ECF No. 55-5; Aff. of
3

Case 1:15-cv-00056-WES-PAS Document 57 Filed 09/10/20 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 557

Rafael Hernandez, ECF No. 55-6; Aff. of Bairon Lopez, ECF No. 557; Aff. of Edgar Orellana, ECF No. 55-8; Aff. of Roberto Quinilla,
ECF No. 55-9; Aff. of Pedro Us, ECF No. 55-10; Aff. of Edgar
Vargas, ECF No. 55-11.

On these facts, it is clear that each

Plaintiff was not paid his due overtime wages in accordance with
the requirements of the FLSA and RIMWA, and thus, judgment shall
enter in their favor.1

See id.

However, although Plaintiffs can make out a claim under both
the FLSA and the RIMWA, they are only entitled to recover for
unpaid wages and liquidated damages under the FLSA.

See Bolduc v.

Nat’l Semiconductor Corp., 35 F. Supp. 2d 106, 117 (D. Me. 1998)
(citing Roman v. Marietta Constr., Inc., 147 F.3d 71, 74 (1st Cir.
1998)) (“[A] plaintiff is not entitled to a double recovery when
he pleads both federal and state claims for the same overtime
pay.”); Bonich v. NAS Component Maint., Inc., C.A. No. 20-21582CIV-MORENO, 2020 WL 3000187, at *3 (S.D. Fla. June 4, 2020) (“[I]t
is well established that a plaintiff cannot double recover unpaid
wages.”); see also Roman, 147 F.3d at 76 (“Since [Plaintiff]

Defendant Cho is a corporate officer of Gourmet Heaven, and
consequently, is liable as an employer under the FLSA. See Manning
v. Bos. Med. Ctr. Corp., 725 F.3d 34, 47 (1st Cir. 2013) (“Courts
have generally agreed that a corporate officer with operational
control of a corporation’s covered enterprise is an employer along
with the corporation, jointly and severally liable . . . for unpaid
wages.”)(quotation marks and citation omitted).
1

4

Case 1:15-cv-00056-WES-PAS Document 57 Filed 09/10/20 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 558

received compensation under the FLSA for his claims, he cannot
recover again under Maine law.”).
Consequently, Plaintiffs are entitled to damages under the
FLSA in the amount of unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages,
pursuant to 29 U.S.C § 216(b), as set forth below.2

See 29 U.S.C.

§ 216(b) (“Any 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 their unpaid minimum wages, or
their unpaid overtime compensation, as the case may be, and in an
additional equal amount as liquidated damages.”).
Plaintiffs are entitled to
to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

Additionally,

“ reasonable attorney’s fees” pursuant

See Rudy v. City of Lowell, 883 F. Supp.

2d 324, 326 (D. Mass. 2012). However, Plaintiffs have not provided
any details as to attorneys’ fees in this case, so the Court cannot
evaluate the reasonableness of this award.

Consequently, within

30 days of this Order, Plaintiffs must supplement the record with
information regarding their fees request.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary
Judgment, ECF No. 55, is GRANTED.

However, prior to entry of

Judgment, Plaintiffs shall supplement the record with material

The damages calculation is set forth in Declaration of
Jordan Mickman, ECF No. 55-3, and the accompanying charts.
2

5

Case 1:15-cv-00056-WES-PAS Document 57 Filed 09/10/20 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 559

regarding the attorneys’ fee request.

Furthermore, Plaintiffs are

entitled to damages under the FLSA in the following amounts:
1. Plaintiff Aj is entitled to $5,903.18 in unpaid wages and
$5,903.18 in liquidated damages.
2. Plaintiff Guarcas is entitled to $7,140.00 in unpaid wages
and $7,140.00 in liquidated damages.
3. Plaintiff Hernandez is entitled to $3,895.00 in unpaid
wages and $3,895.00 in liquidated damages.
4. Plaintiff Lopez is entitled to $7,460.00 in unpaid wages
and $7,460.00 in liquidated damages.
5. Plaintiff Orellana is entitled to $13,900.00 in unpaid
wages and $13,900.00 in liquidated damages.
6. Plaintiff Quinilla is entitled to $20,978.12 in unpaid
wages and $20,978.12 in liquidated damages.
7. Plaintiff Us is entitled to $20,385.50 in unpaid wages and
$20,978.13 in liquidated damages.
8. Plaintiff Vargas is entitled to $21,012.50 in unpaid wages
and $21,012.50 in liquidated damages.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

William E. Smith
District Judge
Date: September 10, 2020

6