Gautier v. 3 Way Restaurant
Dalmado Gautier, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 3 Way Restaurant, Inc. (d/b/a 3 Way), Miguelina Y Luna, and Luis O. Bruno
- Clarke
- 1:20-cv-03776
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Dalmado Gautier v. 3 Way Restaurant, Judge Clarke adopted the damages recommendation and directed judgment for Gautier.
Dalmado Gautier received the damages and related awards recommended after the defendants’ default, while 3 Way Restaurant, Inc., Miguelina Y Luna, and Luis O. Bruno were subject to the resulting judgment.
What happened
Dalmado Gautier v. 3 Way Restaurant, Inc. followed an earlier entry of default judgment against the defendants and a damages review by Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang. The magistrate judge recommended awards for unpaid minimum wages and overtime, liquidated damages, an unlawful deduction, interest, and attorney’s fees and costs.
No defendant objected to the recommendation or requested more time to do so. The court therefore found that the defendants had waived their right to object and to seek appellate review of the recommendation.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke reviewed the recommendation, found it well supported, adopted it in its entirety, directed the Clerk to enter judgment, and ordered the case closed. The recommended awards included $212,476.62 in damages, $50,337.18 in pre-judgment interest, $8,072.50 in attorney’s fees and costs, and post-judgment interest.
The detailed version
- Gautier v. 3 Way Restaurant · No. 1:20-cv-03776
- Clarke
- Oct. 2, 2025
Background
The case involved a damages review after the court had entered default judgment against the defendants. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang, who issued a Report and Recommendation on May 8, 2025.
Judge Wang recommended that Dalmado Gautier receive $106,222.31 in minimum-wage and overtime damages, $106,222.31 in liquidated damages, and $32.00 in unlawful-deduction damages. These amounts totaled $212,476.62. She also recommended $50,337.18 in pre-judgment interest, $8,072.50 in attorney’s fees and costs, and post-judgment interest. The opinion states that the earlier default-judgment order had granted post-judgment interest calculated under 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
Objections and Review
The Report and Recommendation gave the parties fourteen days to object and warned that failing to object on time would waive the right to object. As of the date of the order, the defendants had filed no objections and had not requested an extension. The court held that the defendants therefore waived the right to object to the recommendation and to obtain appellate review.
Because there were no objections, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error on the record rather than conducting a new review of disputed portions. The court stated that it nevertheless reviewed the recommendation and found it well reasoned and supported by the facts and law.
Ruling
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment consistent with the order and close the case. Gautier was ordered to serve a copy of the order on the defendants.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.