Cazares v. 2898 Bagel & Bakery Corp.
- Alison Nathan
- 1:18-cv-05953
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Cazares v. 2898 Bagel, Judge Freeman ordered additional damages evidence before recommending awards in the workers’ wage case.
The twelve named plaintiffs, particularly those whose damages submissions lacked supporting evidence and Jose Cedano, whose manager status required further information; defendants 2898 Bagel & Bakery Corp. and Shlomo Sela; and the parties’ submissions concerning damages.
What happened
In Cazares v. 2898 Bagel & Bakery Corp., the defendants had defaulted, establishing liability based on the well-supported allegations, but not the amount of damages. The court found that six of the twelve plaintiffs had submitted declarations supporting their damages claims, while the opinion identifies only five other plaintiffs as lacking that evidence.
The court gave those plaintiffs another opportunity to submit admissible proof of their damages. It also directed Jose Cedano to provide specific information about his work as a manager because his job duties could affect whether wage-and-overtime exemptions apply. The plaintiffs’ supplemental materials were due June 25, 2021, and the defendants’ responses were due July 2, 2021.
Judge Debra Freeman ordered the supplementation and stated that the court would later issue a recommendation about damages based on the written submissions unless a defendant timely requested a hearing. The order did not set the damages amounts.
The detailed version
- Cazares v. 2898 Bagel & Bakery Corp. · No. 1:18-cv-05953
- Alison Nathan
- June 7, 2021
Background
This Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law wage-and-hour case was referred to the court for an inquest, meaning a proceeding to determine the amount of damages and attorneys’ fees after the defendants’ default. The defendants were 2898 Bagel & Bakery Corp., doing business as Nussbaum & Wu, and Shlomo Sela. The opinion states that a default judgment had established the defendants’ liability, but that a default judgment based on the complaint’s allegations does not establish damages.
The court explained that plaintiffs must support the amount of their damages with evidence and must establish that amount with reasonable certainty. Allegations in the complaint are accepted as true for liability but are not evidence of damages.
Order to Supplement
The opinion states that six plaintiffs—Ascencion Cazares, Benjamin F. Delacruz, Gabino Romano Hernandez, Hermenejildo Angel Prudente, Jose Cedano, and Susana E. Robles Martinez—submitted declarations under penalty of perjury supporting their damages claims. It then states that the other plaintiffs apparently relied only on the amended complaint. However, the later directive identifies only five plaintiffs—Idor Jean Luckner, Jose G. Reyes, Luis Alberto Salas Umana, Wendy Patricia Damas, and Poco J. Quedraogo—as needing to supplement their submissions. The opinion therefore contains an internal inconsistency about the number and identity of the plaintiffs lacking evidence.
The court allowed the plaintiffs identified in the directive to supplement their damages submissions rather than immediately recommending no damages. It warned that claims not supported by admissible proof could receive no damages even though the defendants had defaulted. The plaintiffs had to file the supplemental materials by June 25, 2021, serve them and the order on the defendants, and file proof of service.
Cedano’s Managerial-Exemption Issue
The court separately directed Jose Cedano to provide more information about his former position as a “manager.” Cedano’s complaint and declaration stated generally that his duties required neither discretion nor independent judgment, but did not describe his specific work. The court explained that whether a manager is exempt from minimum-wage and overtime requirements depends on the actual work performed. Cedano was directed to provide enough information for the court to determine whether he could recover damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and/or New York Labor Law.
Defendants’ Responses and Further Proceedings
The defendants could respond to the supplemental submissions by July 2, 2021. Because 2898 Bagel is a corporation, the court stated that it could respond or request a hearing only through an attorney. Sela could respond without counsel by mailing the submission to the court’s Pro Se Office.
If the defendants did not respond by the deadline, the court stated that it would issue a report and recommendation about damages based only on the written submissions. The court also stated that it would not hold a damages hearing unless a defendant requested one in writing by July 2, 2021. This order did not determine the damages amounts or issue the final damages recommendation.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.