Knox v. John Varvatos Enterprises, Inc.
Plaintiff: Tessa Knox
Defendant: John Varvatos Enterprises, Inc.
Case Number: 1:2017cv00772
Filed: February 1, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
County: Suffolk
Presiding Judge: Gregory H. Woods
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29 U.S.C. ยง 206
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
June 22, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 416 OPINION AND ORDER: re: 412 MOTION for Attorney Fees (Supplemental). MOTION to Alter Judgment re: 407 Judgment on Attorney Fees 403 Clerk's Judgment filed by Pamela Kassen, Jena Toback, Laurentina Chaparro, Ruby Romero, Christina Torres, Michelle Ortiz, Joy Fusaro, Tessa Knox, Margret Holcomb, Arissia Tossetti, Alyssa Hickey, Wijdan Shoubaki, Tripti Pandey, Hillary T Crandle. The plaintiffs' motion (Docket # 412) to amend the judgments and for fees is granted in part and denied in part. First, the Clerk is directed to issue an Amended Judgment as to Docket # 403 that increases the award in that judgment from $1,758,025.61 to $1,898,746.20. Second, the Court hereby awards plaintiffs $215,340 .00 in additional attorney's fees for work performed by the plaintiffs' attorneys since the entry of the initial March 24, 2020 judgment (Docket # 362). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 6/22/2021) (ama) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
February 17, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 407 JUDGMENT on Attorney Fees in favor of Alyssa Hickey, Arissia Tossetti, Christina Torres, Hillary T Crandle, Jena Toback, Joy Fusaro, Laurentina Chaparro, Margret Holcomb, Michelle Ortiz, Pamela Kassen, Ruby Romero, Tessa Knox, Tripti Pandey, Wijd an Shoubaki against John Varvatos Enterprises, Inc.; in favor of Tessa Knox against John Varvatos Enterprises, Inc. in the amount of $874,201.42. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opi nion and Order dated February 17, 2021, plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and the service payment is granted. Plaintiffs are awarded a total of $748,321.21 in statutory attorney's fees and costs to be paid by Varvatos, and an additional amount of $105,880.21 in attorney's fees to be paid from the damages award allocated to punitive damages, for a total of $854,201.42 in attorney's fees. Plaintiff Knox is awarded a service payment of $20,000 from the punitive damages award. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 2/17/2021) (Attachments: # 1 Right to Appeal) (km)
February 2, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 404 ORDER: The Court would like clarification from plaintiffs as to the reason Tessa Knox seeks the incentive payment only from the portion of the punitive damages award attributable to those class members who were not also FLSA opt-ins ("named pl aintiffs"). See Docket # 368 at 3, 28-35. The Court understands her attorneys believe they cannot seek their additional payment from the named plaintiffs recovery because such a request is barred by the named plaintiffs' retainer agreement s. No explanation is given, however, as to why any incentive payment to Knox herself should be drawn only from the award to the non-named plaintiffs. Please provide an explanation of this distinction for purposes of any incentive payment. Second, the Court would like clarity on why, putting the weighing of the equities to one side, plaintiffs are making a distinction between the compensatory damage award and the punitive damage award as a source of the additional payments at all. Is it the plain tiffs position that had only compensatory damages been awarded it would be impermissible to order an incentive payment? Relatedly, the plaintiffs cite several cases awarding incentive payments. See Docket #368 at 30. Every case involved a settlement fund. Courts have a designated role in approving settlements by virtue of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). What is the basis for a courts power to award an incentive payment from a jury award? Can plaintiffs cite any cases in which incentive payments were orde red to be made from a jury award? Finally, if the Court were to view its powers to award an incentive payment as deriving from its power to award attorney's fees from a "common fund," see, e.g., Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472, 478 (1980), would either the compensatory damages award, the punitive damages award, or both qualify as a "common fund"? If so, why? If not, why not? The plaintiffs are invited to address these matters in a letter filed at their earliest c onvenience (and no later than February 19). The Court assumes that the defendant does not plan to respond for the reasons stated in its memorandum (Docket #383 at 42-43). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 2/2/2021) (mml)
January 29, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 403 CLERK'S AMENDED JUDGMENT re: 402 Order in favor of Alyssa Hickey, Arissia Tossetti, Christina Torres, Hillary T Crandle, Jena Toback, Joy Fusaro, Laurentina Chaparro, Margret Holcomb, Michelle Ortiz, Pamela Kassen, Ruby Romero, Tessa Kno x, Tripti Pandey, Wijdan Shoubaki against John Varvatos Enterprises, Inc. in the amount of $1,758,052.61. Whereas this action having been tried in two phrases, with the Hon. Gabriel W. Gorenstein presiding, and the jury having rendered a ve rdict in each of those two phases of the trial, from which the Court has calculated the total damages of judgment due to (i) the plaintiff Tessa Knox, (ii) the 13 Opt-In plaintiffs and (iii) the class that the Court certified in an order entered F ebruary 22, 2018 (collectively, Plaintiffs). It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Order dated March 23, 2020, and for the reasons stated in the Courts Order dated January 27, 2021, Plaintiffs s hall recover from the defendant John Varvatos Enterprises, Inc., the total amount of one million, seven hundred fifty eight thousand, twenty five dollars and sixty one cents, ($1,758,025.61), which includes prejudgment interest, as applicable , on the states claims at 9% and on the federal claims at 0.01126%. Plaintiffs shall be entitled to post- judgment interest at the rate fixed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 1/29/2021) (Attachments: # 1 Right to Appeal) (km)
January 27, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 402 ORDER: In light of the plaintiffs' acceptance of the remittitur proposed in Docket # 398 as set forth in Docket # 399, the Clerk is requested to enter an Amended Judgment that amends the judgment entered in this action on March 23, 2020 (Dkt. 362) nunc pro tunc to strike the words "three million, five hundred sixteen thousand, fifty one dollars and twenty three cents ($3,516,051.23)" and replace them with the words one million, seven hundred fifty eight thousand, twenty five dollars and sixty one cents,$1,758,025.61." So Ordered. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 1/28/2021) (js) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
January 12, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 398 OPINION AND ORDER re: 374 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law . filed by John Varvatos Enterprises, Inc. For the foregoing reasons, John Varvatos Enterprises, Inc.'s motion (Docket # 374) is denied except that defendant is granted a new trial on the issue of compensatory and punitive damages unless the plaintiffs agree in a writing filed on the docket within 21 days to accept the remittitur described above. If plaintiffs accept the remittitur, they shall thereafter consult with defendant and submit a new proposed amended judgment consistent with the remittitur. If they do not accept, they shall so report to the Court and the Court will (1) set a deadline for the filing of revised pretrial materials and (2) set a trial date on the issue of compensatory and punitive damages to take place at a time when jury trials in the courthouse resume. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 1/12/2021) (cf)
April 23, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 380 ORDER: With regard to defendant's request for permission to file a motion seeking a stay of the enforcement of the judgment (Docket # 378), the Court's pre-motion conference requirement is waived. With respect to defendant's applicatio n for a stay of enforcement of the judgment pending the disposition of the planned motion for a stay, the Court notes that defendant waited until the eve of the date on which plaintiffs are entitled to enforce the judgment to make this application. G iven that this motion could have been made as soon as judgment was entered and in light of the defendant's unexplained delay, the Court will grant it only if the following conditions are met: (1) defendant files its motion for a stay by May 6, 2 020; (2) defendant produces a witness prepared to testify by telephone as to all factual matters raised in plaintiffs' letter, including but not limited to insurance information (Docket # 379) by May 11, 2020; and (3) defendant fully cooperates in addressing any other reasonable discovery requests made by plaintiffs relating to defendant's financial condition or insurance arrangement. The briefing schedule on the motion shall be in accordance with paragraph 2.B of the Court's Indi vidual Practices. The parties may extend any of the deadlines in this Order by mutual consent and without Court Order. The Court will be prepared to lift the stay at any time if it finds that defendant has not complied with this Order or if plaintiffs present evidence to the Court that justifies lifting this stay. SO ORDERED., ( Motions due by 5/6/2020.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 4/23/2020) (ama)
March 24, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 362 CLERK'S JUDGMENT re: 361 Order. in favor of Alyssa Hickey, Arissia Tossetti, Christina Torres, Hillary T Crandle, Jena Toback, Joy Fusaro, Laurentina Chaparro, Margret Holcomb, Michelle Ortiz, Pamela Kassen, Ruby Romero, Tessa Knox, Trip ti Pandey, Wijdan Shoubaki against John Varvatos Enterprises, Inc. in the amount of $ 3,516,051.23. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Order dated March 23, 2020, Plaintiffs shall recove r from the defendant John Varvatos Enterprises, Inc., the total amount of three million, five hundred sixteen thousand,fifty one dollars and twenty three cents ($3,516,051.23), which includes prejudgment interest, as applicable, on the states cl aims at 9% and on the federal claims at 0.01126%. Plaintiffs shall be entitled to post-judgment interest at the rate fixed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1961. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 03/24/2020) (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Right to Appeal) (dt)
March 23, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 361 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ENTER JUDGMENT. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter judgment as follows: Plaintiffs shall recover from the defendant John Varvatos Enterprises, Inc., the total amount of three million, five hundred sixteen thousan d, fifty one dollars and twenty three cents ($3,516,051.23), which includes prejudgment interest, as applicable, on the state claims at 9% and on the federal claims at 0.01126%. Plaintiffs shall be entitled to post judgment interest at the rate fixed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 3/23/2020) (rjm) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
March 19, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 359 ORDER: The Court directs the parties to submit a proposed judgment by March 23, 2020, that accords with the jury's verdict and any rulings by the Court made as to that verdict. If the parties cannot agree, they may submit separate proposed judgm ents. The Court notes that it did not understand plaintiffs' statement in Docket # 357 that the judgment should be made "subject to" an incentive fee award and a special attorney's fee award. The Court assumes the requests for such awards do not affect the contents of the judgment and that such requests would be made, if at all, after judgment was entered. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 3/19/2020) (ama)
March 12, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 356 ORDER: The time of the telephone conference scheduled for tomorrow is changed to 9:30 a.m. If this represents a problem for the parties, the conference time may be changed to 3:30 p.m. or later. In the absence of an application to change the time, however, the conference will proceed at 9:30 a.m. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 3/12/20) (rch)
March 11, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 355 ORDER. As to Issue 3, a telephone conference to discuss this issue shall take place on March 13, 2020, at 10:30 a.m. The parties shall either call in to Chambers ((212) 805-4260) with all parties on the line or arrange a dial-in conference call. Th e Court concludes there are no disputed facts requiring a trial as to Issues 1, 2 and 4. Those issue are either resolved or are to be the subject of additional briefing as stated below. As further set forth in the Order. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 03/11/2020) (Gorenstein, Gabriel)
March 9, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 352 ORDER: Accordingly, the Court orders as follows: The Clerk is requested to make the March 2, 2020 transcript (Docket # 348) viewable only by the Court and the attorneys on the case until further order of the Court. On or before March 27, 2020, defend ant shall file any motion to seal the transcript's redactions. The briefing schedule on the motion shall be in accordance with paragraph 2.B ofthe Court's Individual Practices. If any material in the motion itself needs to be filed under seal, defendant shall comply with paragraph 2.E of the Court's Individual Practices. SO ORDERED., ( Motions due by 3/27/2020.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 3/06/2020) (ama)
February 18, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 327 ORDER: As stated at the conference held on February 7, 2020, the Court will limit the parties' presentation of their case to a certain number of hours for each side. Having examined the pretrial materials, the Court believes that 11 hours for ea ch side will be more than sufficient for the parties to present their cases. This time limitation includes all matters occurring before thejury (e.g., the opening statement by the party, direct of the party's own witnesses, cross of the opposing party's witnesses). The limitation does not include closing arguments. We will discuss at the end of the case time limitations for such arguments, if any. The time limitation also does not include any discussions with the Court outside the jury 's presence. The Courtroom will be open at 8:45 a.m. Other than the first day of trial, testimony will start as soon as all jurors are present, which is expected to be between 9:00 a.m. and 9:15 a.m. The Court will take a 15-minute break at 10:5 5 a.m. and will recess for lunch at 12:45 pm. Trial will resume at 2:00 p.m. until 5:00 p.m., with a 20-minute break at about 3:20 p.m. On the first day of trial, February 24, 2020, proceedings will begin at 9:30 a.m. with housekeeping matters. It is not expected that the jury venire will be available for voir dire until 10:15 a.m. at the earliest. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 2/18/2020) (ama)
February 14, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 322 ORDER. As stated at the conference held on February 7, 2020, the Court expects the parties to discuss all disputed exhibits to determine whether the parties can reach agreement on admissibility, which may include an agreement on a limiting instruct ion for that exhibit. If disputes remain, the Court plans to address them at the conference on February 21, 2020. The parties shall file a letter by February 19, 2020, that lists each exhibit in dispute and provides for each such exhibit a brief explanation of the parties' positions, along with supporting citations/case law if appropriate (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 02/14/2020) (Gorenstein, Gabriel)
February 7, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 321 ORDER terminating 245 Motion in Limine; terminating 248 Motion in Limine; terminating 250 Motion in Limine; terminating 252 Motion in Limine; terminating 260 Motion in Limine; terminating 273 Motion in Limine: The parties' mot ions in limine (Docket ## 245, 248, 250, 252, 260, 273) were either granted or denied as stated during the conference held today. The Clerk is requested to terminate these motions. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 2/7/2020) (jwh)
October 17, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 84 OPINION AND ORDER re: 39 MOTION to Certify Class Conditional - EPA filed by Tessa Knox. For the foregoing reasons, Knox's motion for conditional approval of a collective action (Docket # 39) is granted as set forth above. Knox shall provide a copy of the proposed mailing to JV prior to its distribution. If there are any further disputes, the parties should discuss them and present any disagreement to the Court promptly. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 10/17/2017) (mml)
October 13, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 81 ORDER re: 60 MOTION to Compel Plaintiff Tessa Knox to Produce . filed by John Varvatos Enterprises, Inc. Oral argument on the pending motion to compel will take place on Thursday, October 19, 2017, at 4:00 p.m. in Courtroom 6-B, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. At this stage, oral argument will be limited to the issue of work product protection. Counsel for plaintiff is directed to provide the documents at issue for in camera review to the Court by CD or DVD delivered to the mail room at 500 Pearl Street (attention: Chambers of Judge Gorenstein) on or before Tuesday, October 17, 2017. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 10/13/2017) (GWG)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: Knox v. John Varvatos Enterprises, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Tessa Knox
Represented By: Richard Weiss
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: John Varvatos Enterprises, Inc.
Represented By: Ned Henry Bassen
Represented By: Jordan Elliot Pace
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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?