Aragon v. Pizza
Baudelio Aragon and Joan Anaya, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. SG Pizza, Inc., et al.
- Rearden
- 1:22-cv-08072
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Aragon v. SG Pizza: Judge Rearden entered default judgment on all claims, with damages to be determined later.
The judgment affects plaintiffs Baudelio Aragon and Joan Anaya and defendants SG Pizza, Inc., Salvatore Grimaldi, and Stephano Grimaldi. It establishes a default judgment against all defendants on all claims, while leaving the amount of damages for a later inquest.
What happened
In Baudelio Aragon and Joan Anaya v. SG Pizza, Inc., the plaintiffs sued SG Pizza, Inc., Salvatore Grimaldi, and Stephano Grimaldi under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The defendants initially obtained more time to respond, but later failed to follow court orders, attend a status conference, or respond to a warning that default could be entered.
The plaintiffs asked for default judgment a second time. Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang recommended granting that request in full. The defendants did not object, so the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden adopted the recommendation and entered default judgment against all defendants on all claims. The amount of damages will be decided at a later damages hearing, called an inquest.
The detailed version
- Aragon v. Pizza · No. 1:22-cv-08072
- Rearden
- Sept. 22, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act against SG Pizza, Inc., Salvatore Grimaldi, and Stephano Grimaldi. SG Pizza was served on September 26, 2022, and the individual defendants were served on September 30, 2022. After the defendants failed to respond, the plaintiffs obtained certificates of default and filed a first motion for default judgment.
The court denied that first motion without prejudice after defense counsel appeared and the parties agreed to extend the defendants’ deadline to answer. The defendants filed an answer seven days after the extended deadline. The case was later referred to mediation, but mediation did not resolve the dispute. Defense counsel moved to withdraw, and the court directed the defendants to say whether they had obtained new counsel or wished to proceed without lawyers. They did not respond.
The defendants also failed to appear at a scheduled status conference. Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang ordered them to explain why sanctions, including default, should not be imposed. The defendants did not respond to that order either. The plaintiffs then obtained new certificates of default and filed their second motion for default judgment.
Report and Recommendation
Judge Wang recommended that the second motion for default judgment be granted in full. The recommendation gave the parties 14 days to file objections and warned that failing to object would waive objections and prevent appellate review. No objections or requests for more time were filed.
Court’s Analysis
Because no objections were filed, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a fresh review of every issue. The court stated that the defendants waived their right to judicial review by failing to object after receiving the warning. The court nevertheless reviewed the recommendation and found no clear error, describing it as well reasoned and supported by the facts and law.
Ruling and Next Steps
The court adopted Judge Wang’s recommendation and entered a default judgment against all defendants on all claims. The court did not determine the amount of damages in this order. Instead, it directed that the case be referred back to Judge Wang for an inquest into damages. The plaintiffs were ordered to serve the order on the defendants by September 29, 2025, and file an affidavit showing that service was completed.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.