Wen v. Hair Party 24 Hours Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:15-cv-10186
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Wen v. Hair Party 24 Hours Inc., Judge Ramos adopted a damages recommendation and ordered judgment against defaulting defendants.
Ge Chun Wen received a judgment against Hair Party 24 Hours Inc., Hair 24 Hours, Inc., Jihee Sproch Kim, and John Doe for unpaid wages, damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs. The defendants were made jointly and severally responsible for the judgment.
What happened
In Wen v. Hair Party 24 Hours Inc., Ge Chun Wen alleged that the defendants violated federal and New York wage laws by underpaying him, failing to pay overtime and other required wages, and not providing required wage notices and statements.
After the defendants failed to appear, the court granted Wen’s request for a default judgment and sent the question of damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs to Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman. Judge Freeman recommended judgment against the defendants, and no party objected to her recommendation.
Judge Edgardo Ramos adopted the recommendation in full and directed the Clerk to enter judgment against the defendants jointly and individually responsible for $190,005 in unpaid overtime wages, the same amount in liquidated damages, specified prejudgment interest, $10,000 in statutory damages, $13,594.05 in attorneys’ fees, and $400 in costs. Judge Ramos also directed the Clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Wen v. Hair Party 24 Hours Inc. · No. 1:15-cv-10186
- Edgardo Ramos
- July 2, 2021
Background
Ge Chun Wen brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law against Hair Party 24 Hours Inc., doing business as Hair & Spa Party 24 Hours; Hair 24 Hours, Inc., doing business as Hair & Spa Party 24 Hours; Jihee Sproch Kim, also known as Jenny Kim; and John Doe. Wen alleged, among other things, that he was paid below the required minimum wage, was owed overtime and “spread of hours” wages, and did not receive wage notices or wage statements required by New York law.
The defendants failed to appear. The court denied Wen’s first request for a default judgment without prejudice on September 18, 2019, then granted a later default motion on December 6, 2019. The court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman to determine damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.
Report and Recommendation
Judge Freeman issued a Report and Recommendation on May 17, 2021. It recommended entering judgment against the defendants and described the damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. The parties were given fourteen days to object, but no objection was filed. The district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.
Ruling and Amounts Awarded
Judge Edgardo Ramos adopted Judge Freeman’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety and directed the Clerk to enter judgment against the defendants jointly and severally. The judgment amounts were:
- $190,005.00 in unpaid overtime wages; - $190,005.00 in liquidated damages; - $116,938.97 in prejudgment interest through February 11, 2021, plus additional interest at nine percent per year from February 11, 2021, through the date of final judgment; - $10,000 in statutory damages for failure to provide wage statements and wage notices; - $13,594.05 in attorneys’ fees; and - $400.00 in costs.
The court also stated that the parties’ failure to object precluded appellate review of the decision, directed counsel for the plaintiff to serve the order on the defendants and file proof of service, and directed the Clerk to close the case.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.