Suriel Monte de Oca v. Dela Cruz

Background

Edilanyi Mabell Suriel Monte De Oca filed a proposed group action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The defendants named in the opinion were Agapito Dela Cruz, Domingo Espinal, Luisa Martinez, Miguel Acosta, Jr., Zero Lounge Restaurant doing business as O’Side Restaurant & Lounge, and unidentified defendants and corporations. Suriel served Zero Lounge Restaurant, Dela Cruz, Martinez, and Espinal. Those defendants—the defaulting defendants—did not answer, respond, or appear. Suriel did not serve Acosta.

The court had previously entered a default judgment in Suriel’s favor and referred the case to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave to determine damages and attorneys’ fees. Two additional people later filed notices consenting to become plaintiffs in the action.

Report and Recommendation

Judge Cave recommended that Suriel receive $187,494 in damages from the defaulting defendants, consisting of $58,297 in unpaid minimum wages, $30,450 in unpaid overtime wages, $88,747 in liquidated damages, and $10,000 in statutory damages. She also recommended $22,126.63 in pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961, $62,498 in attorneys’ fees, and $400 in costs.

The recommendation further called for Suriel’s claims against Acosta to be dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m) and 41(b). It recommended denying the opt-in plaintiffs’ requests for damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs and dismissing those plaintiffs without prejudice.

District Court’s Review and Ruling

The parties had fourteen days to object to the report and recommendation, but neither party objected or requested more time. The district court therefore reviewed the report for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake on the record. The court found no clear error and adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety.

The Clerk was directed to terminate any open motions, enter judgment consistent with the order, and close the case. The court’s action involved a default judgment, meaning judgment entered after the served defendants failed to participate rather than after a contested trial on the claims.