Zokirzoda v. Acri Cafe Inc.

Background

Dessirey Zokirzoda and Marcos Lazu sued Acri Café Inc. and Muhamet Demaj under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). They alleged that they worked as servers or a server and bartender at Acri Café, worked about 84 hours per week, and were each paid $240 per week. They alleged that defendants did not pay the required minimum wage, overtime wages, or spread-of-hours compensation and did not provide wage notices when they were hired. Lazu also alleged that Demaj retaliated against him by filing a police report that led to his arrest.

The defendants were served but did not answer or otherwise appear. The plaintiffs obtained certificates of default and moved for default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b). The court explained that the defendants’ failure to answer meant they conceded well-pleaded factual allegations establishing liability, but the plaintiffs still had to show that those facts established each claim and had to prove damages with reasonable certainty.

Liability rulings

The court held that the allegations established that Zokirzoda and Lazu were employees under both the FLSA and NYLL. The allegations also established FLSA coverage because plaintiffs alleged that defendants engaged in interstate commerce and had annual gross sales exceeding $500,000. The court found sufficient allegations that both plaintiffs worked more than 40 hours per week without proper minimum-wage and overtime pay.

The court also found sufficient support for the NYLL spread-of-hours claims because both plaintiffs alleged that they worked more than 10 hours per day and received no additional spread-of-hours pay.

The amended complaint contained a drafting error concerning wage notices. Its factual allegations and request for relief referred to missing wage notices, but its listed cause of action referred instead to wage statements, such as paystubs. Because the factual allegations and requested relief gave defendants notice of the wage-notice claim, the court granted default judgment on that claim.

The court denied default judgment on Lazu’s retaliation claim. The court held that the New York City Human Rights Law retaliation provision protects activity connected to opposing discrimination or filing a discrimination-related complaint. Lazu’s alleged wage complaints were not connected to discrimination covered by that law.

Damages and fees

The court calculated unpaid minimum and overtime wages using the New York City minimum wage and the tip-credit assumptions reflected in plaintiffs’ motion. It awarded:

- Zokirzoda: $5,844 in unpaid regular and overtime wages and $624 in spread-of-hours compensation. - Lazu: $5,580 in unpaid regular and overtime wages and $588 in spread-of-hours compensation. - Wage-notice statutory penalties: $2,600 for Zokirzoda and $2,450 for Lazu. - Liquidated damages under the NYLL: $6,468 for Zokirzoda and $6,168 for Lazu.

The court did not award liquidated damages under both the FLSA and NYLL. It used the NYLL calculation because it provided the greater recovery in this case. It also awarded nine-percent-per-year prejudgment interest on $5,844 for Zokirzoda from October 31, 2018, and on $5,580 for Lazu from November 2, 2018, excluding liquidated damages and wage-notice penalties.

For attorney’s fees, the court reduced Robert Salaman’s requested hourly rate from $300 to $250 and reduced the claimed time because of excessive hours and repeated errors in the filings. It awarded $7,270 in attorney’s fees and $440 in costs.

Disposition

The court’s conclusion states that the motion for default judgment was granted in part and denied in part. It directed the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against Acri Café Inc. and Muhamet Demaj, jointly and severally, for $36,820, plus the specified prejudgment interest. The judgment was to include $14,912 for Zokirzoda and $14,198 for Lazu in back pay, overtime, spread-of-hours pay, statutory damages, and liquidated damages, along with the attorney’s fees and costs. The court directed the Clerk to close the motions and the case.

The opinion contains an apparent date inconsistency: its explanation of prejudgment interest uses November 2, 2018, as Lazu’s midpoint date, while one sentence in the conclusion refers to November 2, 2019. The summary above follows the earlier calculation and the surrounding discussion, which state November 2, 2018.