Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 1, 2022

Lluilema Garcia v. Francis General Construction Inc.

Judge
John Cronan
Docket
1:20-cv-04323
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
EmploymentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Lluilema Garcia v. Francis General Construction, Judge Cronan required more evidence before deciding damages after finding defendants liable.

Who this affects

Jose Antonio Lluilema Garcia and the defendants, because the order required additional information before the court could determine the damages, attorney fees, and costs owed.

What happened

In Lluilema Garcia v. Francis General Construction Inc., Jose Antonio Lluilema Garcia sought a default judgment against the defendants. The court had already made findings of liability but had reserved its decision on damages, attorney fees, and costs.

The court said Garcia had not provided enough information to calculate damages. New York’s minimum wage can depend on where the work occurred and how many employees the employer had. Garcia worked both in New York City and on Long Island, but his calculations used only New York City’s rate for large employers.

The court ordered Garcia to submit supplemental briefing and evidence about the defendants’ employee count, where and how many hours he worked outside New York City, and how to calculate pay for days worked in multiple locations. Judge John P. Cronan did not decide the damages amount in this order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Lluilema Garcia v. Francis General Construction Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-04323
Judge
John Cronan
Date
June 1, 2022

Background

Jose Antonio Lluilema Garcia moved for default judgment against the defendants. The court had previously made findings concerning liability on January 20, 2022, but reserved its decision on damages, attorney fees, and costs. The court then reviewed Garcia’s testimony from an inquest hearing, his affidavit, and his submissions supporting his damages request.

Why the Court Needed More Information

The court explained that under New York law, the minimum wage can vary based on where the work was performed and how many people the employer employed. In New York City, employers with more than ten employees must pay a higher minimum wage than employers with ten or fewer employees.

Garcia had not submitted evidence showing how many people the defendants employed during the relevant period. He also testified that he performed some work outside New York City, including on Long Island. His damages calculations nevertheless used only the New York City minimum-wage rate for large employers. He had not explained how to calculate damages for work performed outside New York City or for a workday that involved more than one location.

Order

The court ordered Garcia to do three things by June 6, 2022:

  1. File supplemental briefing explaining how the location of his work and the number of employees affected the damages calculation, including how to calculate damages when a person worked part of a day in one location and part elsewhere.
  2. Submit evidence, such as a sworn affidavit, showing how many employees worked for the defendants from June 6, 2014, through September 9,
  3. 3. Submit evidence, such as a sworn affidavit, showing how many hours Garcia worked outside New York City and in which counties he performed that work.

Judge John P. Cronan’s order required additional briefing and evidence; it did not state a final damages amount in this opinion.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.