Lin v. Grand Sichuan 74 st Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs, identified as Yunjian Lin, Young Jun Li, Wei Wei Ding, Li Weng, Wei Ting Zhao, Yuhai Zhu, Youmin Shen, and Miao Wang, were former employees of Grand Sichuan 74. They sued the restaurant’s purported owners, operators, or managers, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, among other claims.

In July 2019, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment on most claims and referred the case to Magistrate Judge Fox for an assessment of damages. Judge Fox’s first report recommended awarding no damages because the plaintiffs’ initial submissions had several deficiencies. The court adopted that recommendation but gave the plaintiffs one more opportunity to correct the problems. The plaintiffs then submitted revised findings, exhibits, affidavits, and a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.

Objections and analysis

Judge Fox’s second report recommended $53,681 in attorneys’ fees, $2,368.80 in costs, and damages totaling the amounts listed below. Three defendants—Yong Li Li, Yong Shu Li, and Li Jiang—objected. They also asserted that they had grounds to seek relief from the default judgment, but they had not filed a motion to vacate it. The court therefore limited its review to the objections concerning damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

The defendants raised five objections. The court rejected their arguments that fees should not include work performed between the filing and approval of a settlement, work performed after the initial default-judgment motion, or work allegedly related to another group of defendants. It also rejected their arguments that inaccurate affidavits or dismissed claims required additional fee reductions because those objections were conclusory and did not identify a reliable basis for reducing the award.

The court sustained the objection concerning attorney time spent correcting counsel’s own errors. It identified two specific time entries and several entries related to correcting deficiencies in the plaintiffs’ first damages submission. The court reduced the recommended attorneys’ fee award by $6,504, setting the award at $47,177.

Disposition

The court adopted Judge Fox’s report with the modification to attorneys’ fees. It granted the plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees, with the award set at $47,177, and awarded $2,368.80 in costs. It assessed damages as follows:

- Lin: $191,635.80 - Li: $81,504.69 - Ding: $57,781.74 - Weng: $53,438.81 - Zhao: $28,835.20 - Shen: $58,553.34 - Wang: $23,344.64 - Zhu: $81,076.72

Judge Abrams directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment against the remaining defendants and close the case.