Flores v. Boro Concrete Corp.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-05006
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Flores v. Boro Concrete Corp., Judge Furman allowed amendment to add two plaintiffs, postponed ruling on sanctions and default judgment, and gave plaintiffs time to supplement evidence.
The named plaintiffs, the two opt-in plaintiffs, the defendants, and the plaintiffs’ counsel were affected. The plaintiffs received permission to amend the complaint and additional time to support their damages and fee requests; the defendants received a deadline to answer. The court postponed ruling on the plaintiffs’ sanctions and default-judgment motions.
What happened
In Flores v. Boro Concrete Corp., the plaintiffs asked for sanctions and a judgment because the defendants had defaulted. They sought relief for the named plaintiffs and two additional plaintiffs who had opted into the case, although the collective action had not been formally certified.
The court allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to add the two opt-in plaintiffs as parties. The plaintiffs had to file the amended complaint by November 28, 2022, and the defendants could answer within one week. The court postponed its decision on the pending motions until after the amended complaint was filed.
The court also found that the plaintiffs had not provided enough evidence to support their requested damages or attorney’s fees. It gave them until December 2, 2022, to correct those problems. Judge Furman did not decide the sanctions or default-judgment motions in this order.
The detailed version
- Flores v. Boro Concrete Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-05006
- Jesse Furman
- Nov. 21, 2022
Background
On September 30, 2022, the plaintiffs filed motions for sanctions and default judgment. The motions sought relief for the named plaintiffs and two opt-in plaintiffs. The opinion states that the collective action had not been certified.
The court explained that, in this situation, courts in the district had held that damages, attorney’s fees, and costs could not be awarded to opt-in plaintiffs unless an amended complaint incorporating their claims had been served. The court therefore allowed the plaintiffs, on its own initiative, to amend the complaint and add the two opt-in plaintiffs as parties.
Deadlines and Pending Motions
The plaintiffs were ordered to file the amended complaint by November 28, 2022. The defendants were permitted to file any answer within one week. The court reserved judgment on the plaintiffs’ pending motions, which were otherwise fully submitted, until the amended complaint was filed.
Damages and Attorney’s Fees
The plaintiffs also asked the court to award damages and attorney’s fees based on the existing record. The court found the record inadequate. For damages, the plaintiffs had not supplied documentary evidence based on personal knowledge to support assumptions such as each plaintiff’s work dates and wage rate. For attorney’s fees, their counsel had not submitted timesheets or other contemporaneous records showing that the requested fees were reasonable.
The court gave the plaintiffs until December 2, 2022, to correct those evidentiary deficiencies. This order did not decide whether the plaintiffs were entitled to sanctions, default judgment, damages, or attorney’s fees.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.