Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 31, 2023

Monter Hernandez v. 99 Thai Playground LLC

Judge
Andrew Carter
Docket
1:19-cv-01257
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
EmploymentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Monter Hernandez v. 99 Thai Playground, Judge Carter adopted a damages recommendation, ordering defaulting defendants to pay $301,907.38 plus interest.

Who this affects

Rodolfo Monter Hernandez received a judgment for $301,907.38 plus applicable interest, while 99 Thai Playground LLC, Inspired Hospitality Management LLC, and Ngam Thaimee were held jointly and severally liable for that amount and the specified fees and costs.

What happened

In Monter Hernandez v. 99 Thai Playground LLC, the court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommendation after the court had already entered a default judgment against three defendants. The recommendation found 99 Thai Playground LLC, Inspired Hospitality Management LLC, and Ngam Thaimee liable for damages.

The defendants did not object to the recommendation. The court found no clear error and adopted it in full, finding the defendants jointly and individually responsible for $301,907.38, plus applicable interest.

Judge Carter directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment and close the case. The award included wage-and-hour damages, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs, with prejudgment interest at nine percent and post-judgment interest at the federal rate.

The detailed version

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

Case
Monter Hernandez v. 99 Thai Playground LLC · No. 1:19-cv-01257
Judge
Andrew Carter
Date
Jan. 31, 2023

Background

On January 27, 2021, the court entered a default judgment against 99 Thai Playground LLC, Inspired Hospitality Management LLC, and Ngam Thaimee. The matter was then referred to Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn for an inquiry into damages after the defendants’ default.

Magistrate Judge Netburn issued a Report and Recommendation on November 28, 2022. It found the three defendants liable for $301,907.38, plus applicable pre- and post-judgment interest. The defendants were notified that they could object but filed no objections.

Court’s analysis and ruling

Because no timely objections were filed, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. Finding no clear error, Judge Carter adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.

The court found the defendants jointly and severally liable, meaning each could be responsible for the full amount, for:

- $144,861.39 in wage-and-hour damages, plus nine percent simple prejudgment interest calculated from February 5, 2016, through the date of judgment; - $144,861.39 in liquidated damages; - $11,230 in attorneys’ fees; and - $954.60 in costs.

The court stated that post-judgment interest would run from the date the Clerk entered judgment until payment, using the federal rate under 28 U.S.C. § 1961. It directed the Clerk to enter judgment and close the case.

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.