Ortega v. The Matilda Gourmet Deli Inc
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:21-cv-10212
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ortega v. The Matilda Gourmet Deli Inc., Judge Schofield ordered default judgment on most wage claims, but not the spread-of-hours claim.
Marco Antonio Ortega and the named defendant companies and individuals. The opinion also describes Ortega as bringing the action on behalf of other employees similarly situated, but it does not state that a class was certified or that those employees received a judgment.
What happened
Marco Antonio Ortega sued The Matilda Gourmet Deli Inc. and other deli companies and individuals over unpaid minimum wages and overtime, along with related notice, recordkeeping, and wage-statement violations. The defendants did not answer, appear, or file motions, and the court clerk certified their default.
The court found that the complaint adequately alleged liability for the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York wage-law claims, except the spread-of-hours claim. The court said that claim was not adequately pleaded because the complaint did not identify a day when Ortega worked more than 10 hours. The order states that the defendants were jointly and severally liable for $98,220 and lists $5,897 in attorney fees; it also refers to a later damages inquiry.
In Ortega v. The Matilda Gourmet Deli Inc., Judge Schofield ordered default judgment under Rule 55 based on the defendants’ failure to participate, rather than after an adversarial trial on the claims.
The detailed version
- Ortega v. The Matilda Gourmet Deli Inc · No. 1:21-cv-10212
- Lorna Schofield
- Sept. 26, 2022
Background
Marco Antonio Ortega brought this action individually and on behalf of other employees described as similarly situated. The complaint alleged violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and New York wage laws, including minimum-wage, overtime, spread-of-hours, notice, recordkeeping, and wage-statement requirements.
The opinion states that the action began on December 1, 2021. Summonses were issued for an individual defendant on January 20, 2022, and service was made on January 27, 2022. No defendant answered, appeared, or filed a motion. The clerk therefore certified the defendants’ default.
Ruling
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, which governs judgments when a defendant fails to defend a case, the court determined whether the complaint’s allegations established liability as a matter of law. The court found that the complaint adequately alleged that the defendants failed to pay Ortega the applicable hourly rate, willfully failed to pay overtime, and failed to provide written information about his pay rate or the dates covered by payments.
The court found the complaint insufficient as to the spread-of-hours claim. New York’s spread-of-hours rule can require an additional hour of minimum-wage pay when an employee’s workday exceeds 10 hours, but the complaint did not identify any day on which Ortega’s workday exceeded 10 hours. The opinion therefore did not find liability on that claim.
The proposed judgment states that Ortega was awarded $98,220 against the defendants jointly and severally. It lists $5,000 in statutory damages for alleged violations of New York Labor Law §§ 193 and 195 and refers to another $5,000 statutory-damages item, although the provided text is corrupted and does not clearly identify that provision. The document also lists $5,897 in attorney fees and states that amounts would be determined through a separate post-default-judgment damages inquiry. The opinion says that a separate order referring the case for that inquiry would issue.
Classification
This is a procedural order under the classification convention because the judgment resulted from the defendants’ default and their failure to appear, rather than from adversarial testing of the claims. Although the court evaluated whether the complaint adequately pleaded liability, a default judgment is classified as procedural under the stated rules.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.