Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 3, 2025

Morisseau v. Global A Brands, INC.

Judge
Stewart Aaron
Docket
1:23-cv-05679
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
12
EmploymentFlsaFee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Morisseau v. Global A Brands, Magistrate Judge Aaron recommended default judgment awarding wage damages, fees, costs, and interest.

Who this affects

Gaelle Morisseau, Global A Brands, Inc., and Tim Alford. The recommendation would award Morisseau damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and post-judgment interest, with the damages assessed jointly and individually against the defendants.

What happened

In Morisseau v. Global A Brands, Inc., Gaelle Morisseau sought a default judgment against Global A Brands, Inc. and Tim Alford for unpaid wages, overtime, vacation pay, and other wage-law violations. Judge Jeannette A. Vargas had already found that Morisseau established liability under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law and referred the case for a damages calculation.

The recommendation would award Morisseau $59,136.96 in damages, including unpaid wages, unused vacation time, unpaid overtime, notice and wage-statement violations, and liquidated damages. It would also award $43,397.50 in attorneys’ fees, $1,086.58 in costs, and post-judgment interest.

Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron recommended granting Morisseau’s default-judgment motion and granting in part and denying in part her attorneys’ fees motion. The text is a report and recommendation, so it recommends that the district court enter the judgment rather than showing that Judge Vargas had already entered it.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Morisseau v. Global A Brands, INC. · No. 1:23-cv-05679
Judge
Stewart Aaron
Date
July 3, 2025

Background

Gaelle Morisseau moved for default judgment against Global A Brands, Inc. and Tim Alford. At an April 22, 2025 hearing, District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas ruled that Morisseau had established liability for unpaid overtime and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). Judge Vargas also found that Morisseau was an employee of both defendants, was owed unpaid wages, overtime, and unused accrued vacation pay, and had sufficiently alleged violations involving late payments, pay stubs, and wage notices. Judge Vargas referred the case to Magistrate Judge Aaron to determine damages and attorneys’ fees.

Recommended Damages

Judge Aaron recommended awarding:

- $12,358.00 for nine weeks of unpaid work; - $1,785.16 for unused accrued vacation time; - $3,501.32 for 68 hours of unpaid overtime; - $10,000.00 for violations involving wage notices and wage statements; and - $31,492.48 in liquidated damages, including damages for unpaid wages, vacation time, overtime, and late payment of wages.

The recommended damages total $59,136.96. The recommendation states that the defendants should be liable for that amount jointly and individually.

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Morisseau requested $54,618.00 in attorneys’ fees and $1,086.58 in costs. Judge Aaron found that some requested hourly rates were too high and reduced certain rates for paralegal, law-clerk, administrative, travel, and client-intake work. He also excluded some time entries, including time without sufficient supporting information and time for tasks that should have been billed at an administrative rate. He recommended $43,397.50 in attorneys’ fees and the full $1,086.58 in requested costs.

Recommendation and Procedure

Judge Aaron recommended that Morisseau’s motion at ECF No. 85 be granted and that her attorneys’ fees motion at ECF No. 103 be granted in part and denied in part. He also recommended post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961. The document is a report and recommendation, not an order stating that the district court had already entered judgment. The parties were given 14 days after service to object, and the recommendation states that failing to object would waive objections and prevent appellate review.

The authoritative version

Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.