Solis v. 53rd Street Partners, LLC
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:19-cv-11708-PGG-SLC
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Solis v. 53rd Street Partners, Judge Gardephe adopted damages recommendations after defendants defaulted and dismissed some plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
The default judgment awarded damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs to the plaintiffs identified in the court’s conclusion. The claims of 15 other named plaintiffs, including Pablo Solis, were dismissed without prejudice after they did not retain counsel or notify the court that they would proceed without a lawyer. Defendants 53rd Street Partners LLC and Roberto Delledonne were subject to the default judgment.
What happened
Solis v. 53rd Street Partners, LLC involved claims by restaurant workers for unpaid minimum and overtime wages and other payments under federal and New York wage laws. The plaintiffs sued 53rd Street Partners LLC, doing business as Remi Restaurant, and Roberto Delledonne.
The defendants did not oppose the request for a default judgment or appear at the default hearing. A magistrate judge later recommended specific damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. No party objected to that recommendation.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe adopted the recommendation in full, awarded the listed plaintiffs damages, $60,331.25 in attorneys’ fees, and $1,102.14 in costs, and dismissed without prejudice the claims of other plaintiffs who neither retained new counsel nor told the court they would proceed without a lawyer.
The detailed version
- Solis v. 53rd Street Partners, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-11708-PGG-SLC
- Paul Gardephe
- Oct. 21, 2022
Background
Pablo Solis, Andres Taveras, and other plaintiffs sued 53rd Street Partners LLC, doing business as Remi Restaurant, and Roberto Delledonne. They alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the federal wage law, and the New York Labor Law. They sought unpaid minimum and overtime wages, additional damages, damages for missing wage notices and statements, damages related to a notice of closure, interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs.
The court entered an order of default against the defendants on August 6, 2020, after they did not oppose the request for a default judgment or appear at the scheduled hearing. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave to determine damages. Defendant Stefano Frittella, who was never served, had previously been dismissed from the action.
Report and Recommendation
Judge Cave recommended individual damages for the plaintiffs identified in her report and recommendation. She also recommended an award of $60,331.25 in attorneys’ fees and $1,102.14 in costs. The plaintiffs served the report and recommendation on the defendants, and it warned that failing to object within 14 days would waive objections and prevent appellate review. No party filed objections.
Because no objections were filed, Judge Gardephe reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. He stated that he had reviewed the 42-page report and recommendation and found it thorough, well reasoned, and free of clear error.
Disposition
The court adopted Judge Cave’s report and recommendation in its entirety. It awarded the plaintiffs named in the court’s conclusion the damages stated in the report and recommendation, along with the recommended attorneys’ fees and costs.
The court also dismissed without prejudice the claims of Karen Marin, Snizhana Romaniuk, Ameridon Ymeri, Gabriel Cabrera Platero, Paulino Carpintero, Nestor Cepedes, Jayanta Kumer Dey, Edwin Mauricio Fajardo Plasencia, Jose Figueroa, Julian Galindo, Adrian Gil, Ricardo Herrera, Wandy Richiez, Osvaldo Serrato, and Pablo Solis. Those plaintiffs had not retained counsel or notified the court that they intended to proceed without a lawyer after their former counsel withdrew. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment and close the case.
Classification
This is a procedural order under the stated classification convention because the judgment followed the defendants’ default rather than an adversarial decision testing the wage claims on their merits.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.