Garcia v. Saigon Grill Inc.

Background

Isidro Garcia, Eliazar Valentin, and Fermin Quiche sued Saigon Market LLC doing business as Saigon Market, Hau Nguyen, and Johnathan Nguyen. They sought unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law. They also asserted New York claims concerning annual wage notices and weekly wage statements.

In a September 24, 2019 order, the court granted the plaintiffs summary judgment on liability for their minimum-wage and overtime claims under the FLSA and New York law. It also granted the plaintiffs summary judgment on their claims concerning wage notices and wage statements. The court granted the defendants summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ spread-of-hours and equipment-cost claims, denied the parties’ other summary-judgment requests, and referred damages to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave for an inquest.

Judge Cave recommended damages of $39,684.97 for Garcia, $6,933.82 for Valentin, and $17,314.73 for Quiche. The recommendation also awarded the plaintiffs $19,531.75 in attorneys’ fees and $465 in costs.

Defendants’ Objection and Statutes of Limitations

The defendants made one objection: they argued that Garcia’s damages should be reduced because some damages accrued more than two years before the action was filed. Judge Broderick overruled the objection. He explained that the FLSA generally has a two-year limitations period because he had previously found that the violations were not willful. New York law, however, provides a six-year limitations period for the plaintiffs’ New York minimum-wage and overtime claims.

Because the plaintiffs sought recovery under both statutes for the same injuries, the court stated that they could recover under the law providing the greatest relief. The court held that the six-year New York limitations period governed those claims. It rejected any portions of Judge Cave’s report that said or suggested otherwise. The court also noted that the defendants had previously submitted damages calculations that included amounts accruing more than two years before the filing of the action.

Attorneys’ Fees Request

The plaintiffs requested an additional $280 in attorneys’ fees for 1.4 hours spent researching and responding to the defendants’ objection. Judge Broderick denied that request because the plaintiffs provided no contemporaneous time records and no legal basis supporting the request.

Prejudgment Interest

The court found clear error in Judge Cave’s prejudgment-interest calculations. New York law provides for nine-percent annual prejudgment interest. The court held that the interest calculation should use dates based on the full period covered by the New York claims, rather than the FLSA’s two-year limitations period. It also held that interest should run through the date judgment is entered, rather than stopping on the date of the report and recommendation.

The court recalculated prejudgment interest through the date of the amended order as $8,598.88 for Garcia, $1,526.08 for Valentin, and $3,731.94 for Quiche.

Disposition

Judge Broderick overruled the defendants’ objections, adopted in part and modified in part Judge Cave’s report and recommendation, and otherwise adopted the report. The order states that Garcia was awarded $39,684.97, Valentin was awarded $6,933.82, and Quiche was awarded $17,314.73, with the revised prejudgment-interest amounts included among the listed components. The plaintiffs were also awarded $19,531.75 in attorneys’ fees and $465 in costs. The clerk was directed to enter judgment with post-judgment interest and close the case. The amended opinion and order superseded the court’s prior opinion and order at docket entry 122.