Su v. Hailu Asian Bistro Inc.
- Freeman
- 1:17-cv-10243-MKV-VF
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Su v. Hailu Asian Bistro, Judge Freeman ordered more damages information before recommending an amount after the corporate defendant’s default.
The order directly affected plaintiffs Jian Bin Lin and Jian Ou, who had to provide additional damages information, and Hailu Asian Bistro Inc., which could respond only through an attorney.
What happened
In Su v. Hailu Asian Bistro, two remaining plaintiffs, Jian Bin Lin and Jian Ou, sought damages after Hailu Asian Bistro Inc. defaulted. The court had been asked to examine the damages evidence and recommend an award.
The court found that the plaintiffs’ submissions did not provide enough factual or legal support to understand and reproduce parts of their calculations. It ordered Lin to clarify his unpaid-salary calculation, directed both plaintiffs to explain their claims for minimum-wage and spread-of-hours pay, and required them to serve the order on Hailu Asian Bistro.
Judge Freeman ordered the plaintiffs to file a supplemental damages submission by February 3, 2021. Hailu Asian Bistro could respond through a lawyer by February 19, 2021; if it did not, the court could recommend damages based only on the written submissions and could decide not to hold a hearing.
The detailed version
- Su v. Hailu Asian Bistro Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-10243-MKV-VF
- Freeman
- Jan. 20, 2021
Background
The matter was referred by Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil to the court for an inquest—a proceeding to examine the amount of damages—to be awarded to the two remaining plaintiffs, Jian Bin Lin and Jian Ou, after the corporate defendant Hailu Asian Bistro Inc. defaulted. The plaintiffs had submitted affidavits and a damages spreadsheet. Hailu Asian Bistro had not filed a response.
Court’s Analysis
The court declined at that stage to recommend damages based only on the plaintiffs’ submissions. It found that some portions of those materials lacked enough factual or legal support for the court to understand or replicate the calculations.
First, the court directed Lin to clarify how much he had been paid between August 13, 2017, and October 20, 2017. The court found inconsistencies between his affidavit and the damages spreadsheet about the number of weeks involved, the amounts paid, and how he calculated $4,625 in unpaid salary.
Second, the court noted that both plaintiffs appeared to contend that their weekly pay covered only their first 40 hours of work in each week. Based on the hours they reported, their base hourly rates would then appear to have exceeded the applicable minimum wage. Because the plaintiffs had claimed minimum-wage damages in the complaint and were seeking spread-of-hours pay under New York law, the court directed them to clarify whether they continued to seek those forms of recovery and, if so, to provide legal support. The court cited decisions stating that spread-of-hours pay is unavailable without a minimum-wage violation.
Order
The court ordered the plaintiffs to submit supplemental damages materials by February 3, 2021, revising their calculations as necessary. It also ordered them to serve Hailu Asian Bistro with the order and file proof of service.
Hailu Asian Bistro could respond to the supplemental submission by February 19, 2021, but the court stated that the corporation could appear only through an attorney. If the corporation did not respond by that date, the court stated that it might issue a report and recommendation on damages based only on the plaintiffs’ written submissions. Unless Hailu Asian Bistro requested a hearing in writing by February 19, the court also stated that it might decide not to hold a damages hearing. The order did not itself determine the amount of damages.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.