Gavino Teofilo v. Real Thai Cuisine Inc.

Background

Jose Luis Gavino Teofilo and Eustolio Gabino Teofilo sued Real Thai Cuisine Inc., Nimnual Likitvarin, and Pookie Doe under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). They alleged violations involving minimum wages, overtime, spread-of-hours pay, wage notices, and wage statements. The case was initially brought as a collective and/or class action, but the court stated that judgment and damages were being sought only by the two named plaintiffs.

The defendants initially answered the complaint and participated in mediation, discovery, trial preparation, and settlement discussions. In March 2020, defense counsel sought a stay and permission to withdraw. The court later granted the withdrawal application after being informed that the defendants were not seeking new representation. The defendants did not obtain new counsel, and the plaintiffs moved for default judgment. The court issued orders requiring Real Thai Cuisine Inc. and Likitvarin/Doe to explain why default judgment should not be entered. Only the plaintiffs’ counsel appeared at the hearing. The court understood Likitvarin and Doe to be the same person.

Default and Liability

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, default occurs when a party against whom relief is sought fails to plead or otherwise defend. Applying the factors used in the Second Circuit, the court found that the defendants’ default was willful, that they had presented no meritorious defenses, and that the plaintiffs would be prejudiced if default judgment were denied.

For a default judgment, the court generally accepts well-pleaded allegations as true except allegations concerning damages. The court found that the complaint and supporting materials established the relevant jurisdictional requirements and substantiated violations of the FLSA minimum-wage and overtime provisions and the NYLL minimum-wage, overtime, spread-of-hours, wage-notice, and wage-statement provisions. The court noted that the plaintiffs were no longer pursuing claims involving the purchase or maintenance of equipment and tools of the trade.

Damages

Because the FLSA and NYLL do not permit duplicative recovery of the same back wages or liquidated damages, the court focused its calculation on the NYLL, which provided the higher minimum wage during the relevant period. The defendants had produced some pay records during discovery, but the records did not show the days of the week or hours worked and omitted Eustolio Gabino Teofilo’s work during a three-month period. The court therefore relied on the plaintiffs’ sworn statements as the best estimates of their work and pay.

The court awarded the following amounts:

- Jose Luis Gavino Teofilo: $30,004.32 in NYLL back wages; $30,004.32 in liquidated damages; $5,000 for wage-notice violations under NYLL § 195(1); and $5,000 for wage-statement violations under NYLL § 195(3). - Eustolio Gabino Teofilo: $24,073.06 in NYLL back wages; $24,073.06 in liquidated damages; $5,000 for wage-notice violations under NYLL § 195(1); and $5,000 for wage-statement violations under NYLL § 195(3).

The court awarded nine-percent prejudgment interest on back wages, beginning November 1, 2017, for Jose Luis Gavino Teofilo and May 1, 2018, for Eustolio Gabino Teofilo. It did not award prejudgment interest on liquidated damages or the wage-notice and wage-statement damages. The court also awarded post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

The court accepted $1,793.80 in litigation costs and 54.73 hours of work by the plaintiffs’ attorneys and staff. It adjusted some requested hourly rates and awarded $14,875.50 in attorneys’ fees. The rates included $400 per hour for Michael Faillace, $300 per hour for Gennadiy Naydenskiy, $100 per hour for paralegal work, and $225 per hour for work attributed to former counsel Haleigh Amant.

Disposition

The court granted the plaintiffs’ application for default judgment and directed the Clerk of Court to prepare a judgment reflecting the awards. It stated that the judgment would automatically increase by 15 percent if amounts remained unpaid after 90 days following issuance of judgment, or 90 days after the expiration of the time to appeal if no appeal was then pending, whichever was later. The court directed that pending motions be terminated, remaining dates be adjourned, the case be closed, and a copy of the order be sent to the defendants through previously used communication methods.