Antus v. Frontrunner Technologies USA, Inc.

Background

Jeannine Antus sued Frontrunner Technologies USA, Inc., Frontrunner Technologies Inc., and Nathan Elliot. She alleged that the defendants agreed to pay her $10,000 per month under a consulting contract and later agreed to pay her an annual salary of $175,000 plus commissions under an employment agreement. She alleged that the defendants paid only a portion of what they owed. She also alleged violations of the New York Labor Law and New York’s Wage Theft Prevention Act, along with claims for breach of contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, fraud, and shareholder liability under New York Business Corporation Law § 630.

The defendants waived service but did not answer, appear, or respond to the court’s orders. The Clerk entered a certificate of default. The district court previously granted Antus’s motion for default judgment and referred the case to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave to determine damages.

Report and Recommendation

Magistrate Judge Cave recommended awarding damages on the contract claim only. Because the defendants defaulted, the court treated the well-pleaded allegations about liability as admitted, but Antus still had to provide evidence establishing the amount of her damages.

The court found that Antus adequately pleaded the consulting and employment agreements, her performance, the defendants’ failure to pay the agreed compensation, and resulting damages. It calculated contract damages as follows:

- Consulting compensation: $20,000 - Salary for June 19, 2021 through December 31, 2021: $94,230.77 - Salary for January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022: $175,000 - Salary for January 1, 2023 through March 31, 2023: $43,750 - Payment received by Antus: minus $65,000 - Total contract damages: $267,980.77

The court also included the $20 wire-transfer fee in the contractual damages calculation by excluding it from the payment credit. It recommended $58,125.03 in prejudgment interest, calculated at nine percent per year from April 9, 2022, through September 5, 2024. It further recommended post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

Other Claims and Requested Relief

The court did not award damages for minimum or overtime wages because Antus’s stated hourly rate exceeded New York’s minimum wage and she did not provide sufficient evidence of the overtime hours she worked. It found that the Wage Theft Prevention Act claim was adequately pleaded but that Antus lacked standing because she did not show an injury beyond the alleged wage violations or identify consequences from not receiving the required wage information other than bringing the lawsuit.

The court concluded that the express contracts prevented recovery under the unjust-enrichment, quantum-meruit, and promissory-estoppel theories. It also found that the fraud claim was based on the same facts as the contract claim. The shareholder-liability claim against Elliot would not provide a separate amount of damages; it would only impose joint and several liability for any damages otherwise awarded. The court recommended no punitive damages and no costs.

District Court’s Action

No party filed objections to the report and recommendation. Judge Margaret M. Garnett found no clear error and adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety. The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment for Antus and against all defendants, jointly and severally, for $267,980.77 in damages, $58,125.03 in prejudgment interest, and post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961. The court also directed the Clerk to close the case.