Vicente v. Ljubica Contractors LLC and Pedro [LNU]

Background

Juan R. Vicente, Juan Zamora, and Luis Benitez brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. They alleged that they worked as construction workers for Ljubica Contractors during various periods between 2014 and 2016. Vicente and Zamora alleged that they were hired directly by Pedrag Jankovic. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants failed to pay overtime premiums, stopped paying wages for hours worked during their final four weeks of employment, and failed to provide required New York wage-and-hour notices and weekly wage statements. They also sought liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and a ruling that the defendants were jointly and severally liable.

Report and Recommendation

Magistrate Judge Ona Wang recommended that the plaintiffs’ summary-judgment motion be treated as unopposed because the defendants filed no opposition. No party objected. Judge Broderick reviewed the recommendation for clear error, found none, and adopted it.

Summary Judgment

The court explained that summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Although the defendants’ failure to oppose allowed the court to accept properly supported factual assertions as undisputed, it did not automatically establish the plaintiffs’ entitlement to judgment.

The court denied the motion because most assertions in the plaintiffs’ statement of material facts lacked citations to record evidence. More importantly, the plaintiffs did not provide admissible evidence supporting any of their factual contentions. They relied primarily on the unverified amended complaint, which was signed only by counsel, and submitted two exhibits: a purported New York Department of State entity-information webpage for Ljubica Contractors and wage calculations prepared by an unidentified person. The court found that these materials did not support key facts such as the hours worked or the failure to pay overtime. The motion for summary judgment was therefore DENIED without prejudice.

Entry of Default

The court separately considered whether the defendants had failed to defend the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55. Pedrag Jankovic had appeared and answered, while Ljubica Contractors had appeared but had not answered the amended complaint. The court found that both defendants had repeatedly failed to provide discovery, attend conferences, respond to orders to show cause, pay monetary sanctions, oppose the summary-judgment motion, or object to the recommendation that the motion be treated as unopposed.

The court concluded that this conduct amounted to a failure to “otherwise defend” the action. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter the default of Pedrag Jankovic and Ljubica Contractors, LLC. The court explained that entry of default establishes liability but is not an admission of damages, and directed the plaintiffs to apply for a default judgment within 60 days. The opinion did not itself enter a default judgment or determine the amount of damages.

Disposition

Judge Broderick adopted Magistrate Judge Wang’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety, denied the plaintiffs’ summary-judgment motion without prejudice, directed entry of the defendants’ defaults, and directed the plaintiffs to apply for a default judgment within 60 days.