Elias Sanchez Gallego et al v. Adyar Ananda Bhavan Corp. et al
| Miguel Elias Sanchez Gallego and Raymundo Vazquez Angel |
| Adyar Ananda Bhavan Corp., Anitha Gounder and Suthan Gounder |
| 1:2016cv04631 |
| June 17, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Bronx |
| Alison J. Nathan |
| Fair Labor Standards Act |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 201 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
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.
|
|
Filing
43
OPINION & ORDER: For the reasons provided above, the Court concludes that Defendant Suthan Gounder was not Plaintiffs' employer and therefore he has no liability. Further, the Court concludes that Restaurant Defendant and Owner Defend ant have violated the FLSA and NYLL only with respect to Plaintiffs' spread of hours claim, wage and notice statements claim, and unpaid wages for hours worked during Plaintiffs' recorded breaks. The Court reserves judgment on the overtime claim. Plaintiffs shall submit a supplemental brief in accordance with this Opinion & Order on or before October 15, 2018. Defendants' response shall be due on or before October 29, 2018. Plaintiff's reply shall be due on or before November 5, 2018. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 9/30/2018) (mro)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
