Basurto v. Deli
- Ho
- 1:25-cv-04903
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Basurto v. Giants Deli, Judge Ho adopted default judgment against Giants, dismissed Hassan, and granted Hauter’s motion to vacate default.
Gonzalo Cornelius Basurto and the other plaintiffs may pursue a proposed judgment against Giants Deli. Giants remains subject to the adopted default proceedings. Akrum Hauter’s default judgment was vacated, and Ahmed Hassan was terminated from the case.
What happened
In Gonzalo Cornelius Basurto, et al. v. Giants Deli, Inc., et al., the plaintiff sought judgments against Giants Deli and Akrum Hauter after they did not respond to the case or to the court’s orders. A magistrate judge recommended damages, attorney’s fees, and costs, and recommended dismissing Ahmed Hassan, who was never served.
Hauter later asked the court to cancel the default judgment against him. The plaintiff did not oppose that request. Hauter submitted evidence that raised questions about whether he was liable, although the court said his explanation for failing to participate was questionable.
Judge Dale E. Ho adopted the recommendations concerning Giants and Hassan, directed the plaintiff to submit a proposed judgment against Giants, and granted Hauter’s motion to vacate the default judgment. The plaintiff and Hauter must submit a letter describing their proposed next steps.
The detailed version
- Basurto v. Deli · No. 1:25-cv-04903
- Ho
- Aug. 19, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Gonzalo Cornelius Basurto moved for default judgment against Giants Deli, Inc. The Clerk issued a certificate of default, and the court ordered Giants to explain why default judgment should not be entered. Giants did not respond. The court then granted the plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment against Giants and referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Cave to determine damages and attorney’s fees.
Basurto later moved for default judgment against Akrum Hauter. Hauter also did not respond to the motion or to the materials submitted concerning damages by the deadline set by Magistrate Judge Cave. Hauter’s counsel later appeared on the docket, but no filing was made at that time.
Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Cave issued a Report and Recommendation concerning the requested default judgment. The Report recommended compensatory damages of $12,712.50, consisting of $9,562.50 in overtime wages and $3,150.00 in spread-of-hours wages; liquidated damages of $12,712.50; statutory damages under the Wage Theft Prevention Act of $10,000; prejudgment interest at nine percent per year on the compensatory damages from September 15, 2023, through entry of judgment; post-judgment interest; attorney’s fees of $1,882.50; costs of $486; and an automatic increase under New York Labor Law § 198(4) for certain unpaid damages. The Report also recommended dismissing the complaint with prejudice as to Ahmed Hassan because he was never served.
Hauter filed a motion to vacate the default judgment before the deadline for objections to the Report. The court treated that motion as an objection to the Report. No response to the motion was filed.
Court’s Rulings
The court accepted the Report’s recommendations concerning Giants and Hassan because those portions were not opposed. Applying clear-error review, the court stated that it found no error in those recommendations and ordered that the Report be adopted as to those defendants. The court directed the plaintiff to file a proposed judgment concerning Giants within fourteen days and directed the Clerk to terminate Hassan from the case.
As to Hauter, the court granted the motion to vacate the default judgment. The court noted that the motion was unopposed, that courts generally prefer resolving disputes on their merits, and that Hauter’s evidence raised questions about whether he was liable. The court also expressed skepticism about Hauter’s failure to appear and respond earlier. The court directed Basurto and Hauter to meet and confer and submit a status letter within fourteen days, including proposed next steps and, if necessary, a proposed case-management plan.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.