Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 17, 2021

Samaniego v. HKS Builders & Consultants Inc.

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:19-cv-10283
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
10
EmploymentFlsaFee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Samaniego v. HKS Builders, Judge Failla awarded two plaintiffs wages, penalties, interest, fees, and costs after default judgment against the defendants.

Who this affects

Elsin Amay Samaniego and Henry Amay Samaniego received monetary awards against HKS Builders & Consultants Inc. and Amarjit Singh; the case was closed.

What happened

In Samaniego v. HKS Builders & Consultants Inc., the court had already entered default judgment for Elsin Amay Samaniego and Henry Amay Samaniego after the defendants did not contest the case. The court then reviewed the plaintiffs’ request for damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs without holding another hearing.

The court awarded each plaintiff $8,930.63 in unpaid overtime wages, an equal amount in liquidated damages, $5,000 for wage-notice violations, and $5,000 for wage-statement violations. Each plaintiff’s award was $27,861.26, plus 9% interest on the back wages from November 15, 2018. The court also awarded $5,912.50 in attorneys’ fees and $400 in costs.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla entered the awards, provided for post-judgment interest, and stated that the judgment would automatically increase by 15% if qualifying amounts remained unpaid after the specified 90-day period. She directed the Clerk to terminate pending motions, adjourn remaining dates, and close the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Samaniego v. HKS Builders & Consultants Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-10283
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
Feb. 17, 2021

Background

The court had entered default judgment for Plaintiffs Elsin Amay Samaniego and Henry Amay Samaniego on October 23, 2020. It directed them to submit the amounts they sought for damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. The defendants did not contest either the default judgment or the proposed amounts. Although the case was initially brought as a collective action, the order states that damages were sought only for the two named plaintiffs.

Damages

The court held that no additional damages hearing was necessary and relied on the plaintiffs’ submissions. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL), the court found that each plaintiff had worked 238.15 overtime hours but had been paid at the regular rate instead of the required one-and-one-half rate. The court awarded each plaintiff $8,930.63 in back wages. It did not award duplicative back wages under both statutes.

Because the defendants made no showing that they had acted in good faith, the court awarded each plaintiff liquidated damages equal to 100% of the back wages: $8,930.63. The court also found that the plaintiffs had received neither the required wage notices nor accurate wage statements. It awarded each plaintiff the statutory maximum of $5,000 for wage-notice violations and $5,000 for wage-statement violations.

The court awarded prejudgment interest on the back wages, but not on the liquidated damages or wage-notice and wage-statement penalties. The interest rate was 9% per year, beginning November 15, 2018, which the court selected as the midpoint of each plaintiff’s employment.

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

The court reviewed Plaintiffs’ counsel’s records and accepted 24.6 hours of work as reasonable. It reduced the requested hourly rates for two attorneys to $400 and $225, respectively, and accepted $75 per hour for paralegal work. The court awarded $5,912.50 in attorneys’ fees and accepted $400 in costs for the filing fee.

Ruling and Disposition

Judge Katherine Polk Failla awarded each plaintiff $27,861.26, consisting of $8,930.63 in back wages, $8,930.63 in liquidated damages, $5,000 for wage-notice violations, and $5,000 for wage-statement violations. The combined award for the two plaintiffs was $55,722.52, not including interest. The court also awarded $5,912.50 in attorneys’ fees and $400 in costs, provided for post-judgment interest, and stated that the judgment would automatically increase by 15% if qualifying amounts remained unpaid after the specified 90-day period. The Clerk was directed to terminate pending motions, adjourn remaining dates, and close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.