Soto v. Crismeli Deli Grocery Inc
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:19-cv-10053
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Soto v. Crismeli Deli Grocery, Judge Broderick adopted a damages recommendation awarding $162,653.44 plus prejudgment interest.
Yorman Soto and the other plaintiffs represented as similarly situated, as well as Crismeli Deli Grocery Inc., Decatur Deli Food Corp., Jose Dolores Garcia, and Reymundo Cosme.
What happened
Yorman Soto sued Crismeli Deli Grocery Inc., Decatur Deli Food Corp., and their alleged owners under federal and New York wage laws. The defendants did not answer or appear at a required hearing, so the court entered a default judgment and ordered a damages review.
A magistrate judge recommended awarding the plaintiffs $162,653.44 in total damages, plus prejudgment interest, against all defendants. Neither side objected to that recommendation.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick found no clear error and adopted the recommendation in full. He directed the Clerk’s Office to enter judgment, end any open motions, and close the case.
The detailed version
- Soto v. Crismeli Deli Grocery Inc · No. 1:19-cv-10053
- Vernon Broderick
- Aug. 8, 2024
Background
Yorman Soto brought this action individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against Crismeli Deli Grocery Inc. and Decatur Deli Food Corp. The opinion states that the two delis were owned and operated by Jose Dolores Garcia and Reymundo Cosme. Soto asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The defendants did not answer the complaint or appear at a show-cause hearing. The court therefore had previously granted Soto’s request for entry of a default judgment and referred the question of damages to Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses for an inquest, or formal damages review.
Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation
On June 28, 2024, Magistrate Judge Moses issued a Report and Recommendation. She recommended that the plaintiffs receive aggregate damages of $162,653.44, plus prejudgment interest, against all defendants. The recommendation stated that the parties had fourteen days to object, but neither party filed an objection or requested more time.
Court’s Analysis and Ruling
When no timely objection is filed, the district court reviews a magistrate judge’s recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. Judge Broderick reviewed the recommendation and found no clear error.
Judge Broderick adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. He directed the Clerk’s Office to terminate any open motions, enter judgment in accordance with the order, and close the case. Under the classification convention used here, this is a procedural order because the judgment followed the defendants’ default rather than an adversarial decision testing the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.