Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 20, 2020

Kamiel v. Hai Street Kitchen Co.

Judge
Stewart Aaron
Docket
1:19-cv-05336
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureADA / DisabilityEmploymentFlsa
In one sentence

In Kamiel v. Hai Street Kitchen Co., Judge Engelmayer adopted Judge Aaron’s damages recommendation after defendants failed to appear.

Who this affects

Sheri Kamiel received the benefit of the adopted damages recommendations. Hai Street Kitchen & Co. LLC, Sakura Dining Corporation, Sun Joon Kim, and Daisuke Kawauchi were subject to the recommended monetary judgments, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

What happened

In Kamiel v. Hai Street Kitchen Co., Sheri Kamiel sued Hai Street Kitchen & Co. LLC, Sakura Dining Corporation, Sun Joon Kim, and Daisuke Kawauchi under disability-discrimination and wage laws. The defendants never answered or otherwise appeared, and the court entered a default judgment deciding liability in Kamiel’s favor.

The court referred the damages question to Judge Stewart D. Aaron, who recommended judgments totaling $66,090 against all defendants together, an additional $35,000 judgment against Hai Street and Sakura, prejudgment interest, $4,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs, and post-judgment interest. No party objected to the recommendation.

Judge Engelmayer reviewed the recommendation for clear error, found none, and adopted it in its entirety. The court directed the clerk to close the case and stated that the parties’ failure to object waived appellate review.

The detailed version

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

Case
Kamiel v. Hai Street Kitchen Co. · No. 1:19-cv-05336
Judge
Stewart Aaron
Date
Apr. 20, 2020

Background

Sheri Kamiel brought claims against Hai Street Kitchen & Co. LLC, Sakura Dining Corporation, Sun Joon Kim individually, and Daisuke Kawauchi individually. She alleged disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. She also alleged that the defendants failed to pay earned wages and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The defendants never filed an answer or otherwise appeared. After Kamiel obtained certificates of default, she moved for a default judgment. Following a hearing, the court entered a default judgment in her favor on liability on December 3, 2019. The court then referred the case to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron for an inquest—the process of determining damages after liability has been established by default.

Report and Recommendation

Judge Aaron recommended that the court:

- enter judgment in Kamiel’s favor against all defendants, jointly and severally, for $66,090, meaning each defendant would be responsible for the full amount subject to the limits of any required recovery allocation; - separately enter judgment in Kamiel’s favor against Hai Street and Sakura for $35,000; - award prejudgment interest as described in the report; - award $4,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs against all defendants, jointly and severally; and - award post-judgment interest on the full judgment amounts under 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

No party filed an objection to the report.

Court’s Analysis and Ruling

Because there were no timely objections, Judge Engelmayer reviewed the report for clear error on the face of the record rather than reconsidering the issues from the beginning. He found no facial error in Judge Aaron’s conclusions and adopted the report in its entirety.

The court therefore adopted the report’s recommendations concerning the monetary judgments, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The court also stated that the parties’ failure to object within fourteen days waived objections and precluded appellate review. It directed the clerk to close the case.

Disposition

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and directed the clerk to close the case. The opinion classifies this ruling as procedural because the monetary judgment followed the defendants’ failure to appear and the resulting default, rather than an adversarial decision testing the underlying claims on their merits.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.