Lin v. Grand Sichuan 74 st Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs, former employees of Grand Sichuan 74, sued the restaurant entities and individuals described as their purported owners, operators, or managers. They alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, among other claims, and sought damages on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated.

On July 29, 2019, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment on most of their claims. A default judgment establishes liability because the defendants did not defend the case, but the plaintiffs still had to prove the amount of their damages. The court referred the damages issue to Magistrate Judge Fox for an inquest, meaning a proceeding to determine the amount owed.

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation

Judge Fox directed the plaintiffs to submit proposed factual findings and legal conclusions, affidavits, exhibits, and proof of damages. After an additional order and an extension, the plaintiffs filed their materials on November 15, 2019. The defendants filed no opposing materials.

Judge Fox recommended that the court award no damages. He found that the plaintiffs’ filings did not identify the amount of damages requested for each plaintiff or the amount of attorney’s fees sought, apart from a request for $10,000 per plaintiff for certain New York notice and record-keeping violations. The plaintiffs’ affidavits stated the number of hours worked during certain periods, but did not identify the number of days on which the alleged notice and record-keeping violations occurred.

Judge Fox also found that the plaintiffs did not provide an affidavit explaining who prepared certain exhibits, what those exhibits contained, or how the damages calculations were made. No party objected to the Report and Recommendation.

District Court’s Ruling

Judge Ronnie Abrams reviewed the recommendation for clear error because no objections were filed. She concluded that the recommendation did not contain clear error and adopted it. The court therefore declined to award the plaintiffs damages at that time.

The court nevertheless gave the plaintiffs one more opportunity to correct the deficiencies identified in the recommendation. It ordered them to submit revised proposed findings, exhibits, and affidavits by July 1, 2020. The court stated that if the plaintiffs failed to submit the revised materials properly by that date, it would dismiss the action, including for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Disposition

The court adopted Judge Fox’s Report and Recommendation and declined to award damages at that time. The opinion does not state what happened after the July 1, 2020 deadline.