Ramirez Castillo v. Barking Dog NYC LLC
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:18-cv-08458
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Ramirez Castillo v. Barking Dog NYC LLC, Judge Broderick adopted a damages recommendation after defendants’ default and ordered judgment for the plaintiff.
Pablo Ramirez Castillo received an order awarding damages, interest, and attorney’s fees and costs. Barking Dog NYC LLC and Sokol Kacl were ordered to be jointly and severally liable for those amounts.
What happened
Ramirez Castillo v. Barking Dog NYC LLC involved Pablo Ramirez Castillo’s claims under federal and New York wage laws for unpaid minimum and overtime wages, notice and recordkeeping violations, wage-statement violations, and work-tool expenses.
Barking Dog NYC LLC and Sokol Kacl were served but did not answer, respond, or appear. After the court entered their default, Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang recommended damages, interest, and attorney’s fees and costs. No party objected.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick reviewed the recommendation for clear error, found none, and adopted it in full. He ordered the defendants to be jointly and severally liable for $36,196 in damages, $2,677.67 in prejudgment interest plus $3.23 per day from August 17, 2019, $3,140 in attorney’s fees and costs, and post-judgment interest at the statutory rate.
The detailed version
- Ramirez Castillo v. Barking Dog NYC LLC · No. 1:18-cv-08458
- Vernon Broderick
- Sept. 23, 2020
Background
Pablo Ramirez Castillo sued Barking Dog NYC LLC and Sokol Kacl under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law, and the New York Labor Law. He sought damages for alleged violations involving minimum wages, overtime wages, required notices, recordkeeping, wage statements, and reimbursement for expenses related to tools of his trade.
The complaint was served on Barking Dog on September 19, 2018, and on Kacl on September 27, 2018. Neither defendant answered, responded to the complaint, or otherwise appeared. Castillo obtained a Clerk’s Certificate of Default against both defendants and then sought a judgment based on that default.
Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation
The court issued an order requiring the defendants to appear and explain why a default judgment should not be entered. They failed to appear on July 12, 2019, and the court entered default against them. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang to determine damages and attorney’s fees.
On January 8, 2020, Magistrate Judge Wang recommended that the defendants be held jointly and severally liable—meaning each could be responsible for the full amount—for:
- $36,196 in damages; - $2,677.67 in prejudgment interest, plus $3.23 per day from August 17, 2019, through the date of judgment, calculated by the Clerk of Court; - $3,140 in attorney’s fees and costs; and - Post-judgment interest at the statutory rate under 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
Neither side objected to the recommendation.
District Court’s Review and Ruling
When no party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court reviews it for clear error. Judge Vernon S. Broderick stated that he reviewed Magistrate Judge Wang’s report and recommendation under that standard and found no clear error.
The court adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety. It ordered Barking Dog and Kacl to be jointly and severally liable for the amounts listed above, directed the Clerk’s Office to enter judgment in accordance with the order, terminated any open motions, and closed the case. Because the judgment followed the defendants’ failure to appear rather than an adversarial determination of the wage claims, this is classified as a procedural order under the stated classification rules.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.