Flores et al v. Chirping Chicken NYC Inc. et al
| Eloy Flores, Jose Alberto Mastranzo, Lazaro Miculax, Tomas Sapon Baquiar, Zacharias Ramirez, Jesus Mendez and Edilberto Osorno |
| Chirping Chicken NYC Inc., Kalli Karalexis and John Doe |
| 1:2014cv01594 |
| March 7, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Bronx |
| Thomas P. Griesa |
| 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
70
ORDER: Adopting REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 61 Motion for Default Judgment, filed by Jesus Mendez, Tomas Sapon Baquiar, Lazaro Miculax, Jose Alberto Mastranzo, Eloy Flores, Edilberto Osorno, Zacharias Ramirez, 69 Report and Recommenda tions. The Court has reviewed Judge Freeman's well-reasoned Report and Recommendation, concurs in its findings, and grants plaintiffs' motion for default judgment. The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation with the following correction s to a minor clerical error: Plaintiff Flores is owed $5,093.71 in unpaid minimum wages and overtime pay for the period beginning January 1, 2011 and ending March 6, 2011, not $1,774.35 as reflected in the table on page 27 of the Report and Recommendation. The total amount owed to Flores for unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages is thus $158,549.22, not $155,229.86. In accordance with this change, Flores is owed liquidated damages on unpaid minimum wages and overtime pay of $17,692.78 for the period from March 7, 2008 to March 6, 2011, bringing Flores's total liquidateddamages on unpaid minimum wages and overtime pay to $106,087.98. Further, Flores's prejudgment interest on unpaid minimum wages and overtime pay for the period beginning January 1, 2011 and ending March 6,2011 should be $2,544.62, not $886.40 as shown in the table on page 31 ofthe Report and Recommendation. The total amount of prejudgment interest onunpaid minimum wages and overtime pay is thus $74,801.12. As set forth in the Report and Recommendation, Flores is also awarded $13,875.94 in spread-of-hours pay, $8,651.06 in liquidated damages on spread-of-hours pay, $6,735.32 in prejudgment inter est on spread-of-hours pay, and $5,000 in statutory damages. Except as described above, the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs as set forth in Judge Freeman's Report and Recommendation. Finally, the court notes that the complaint also names a "John Doe" defendant who has not been identified and who plaintiffs do not move against for a default judgment. Plaintiffs are directed to file a letter updating the court on the status of their claims against this defendant by April 13, 2017. This order resolves the motion pending at docket number 61. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 4/06/2017) (ama)
|
|
Filing
55
ORDER adopting 54 Report and Recommendation. Magistrate Judge Freeman has recommended that defendant Kalli Karalexis be found in default and that plaintiffs be granted leave to move for a default judgment against her. No objections to Magistrat e Judge Freeman's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") have been received, and the court finds no clear error in the R&R. The R&R is thus adopted in its entirety. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter default against defendant Karalexis and plaintiffs are granted leave to move for a default judgment against Karalexis. (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 6/9/2016) (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.
