Guerrero v. Nuevo Tulcingo Azteca Corp.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-07285
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Guerrero v. Nuevo Tulcingo Azteca, Judge Caproni ordered Guerrero to explain her differing hourly rates for minimum-wage and overtime damages.
Yaritza Salazar Guerrero must be prepared to address the hourly-rate issue at the default judgment hearing; the order concerns the proposed damages calculation in her case against Nuevo Tulcingo Azteca Corp. and Gilberto Molina.
What happened
In Guerrero v. Nuevo Tulcingo Azteca Corp., Yaritza Salazar Guerrero asked the court to enter a default judgment for herself and others similarly situated. She submitted a proposed damages calculation before a scheduled hearing.
The calculation used one regular hourly rate to calculate minimum-wage damages and a different regular hourly rate to calculate overtime damages. The order notes that the hearing was scheduled for February 13, 2023.
Judge Valerie Caproni ordered Guerrero to be prepared at the hearing to explain the legal authority for using different rates. The order did not decide whether to enter default judgment or determine the amount of damages.
The detailed version
- Guerrero v. Nuevo Tulcingo Azteca Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-07285
- Valerie Caproni
- Feb. 6, 2023
Background
Yaritza Salazar Guerrero sued Nuevo Tulcingo Azteca Corp. and Gilberto Molina on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. On January 24, 2023, Guerrero filed a proposed default judgment order and supporting papers, including a proposed damages calculation. A default judgment is a judgment entered when a party has not defended the case, but the order does not state whether the court had entered one.
The parties were scheduled to appear for a default judgment hearing on February 13, 2023. Guerrero’s damages calculation used different regular hourly rates to calculate minimum-wage damages and overtime damages.
Order
The court ordered Guerrero to be prepared at the hearing to explain the legal authority for using different regular hourly rates for those two types of damages. The court cited two decisions that used the same regular hourly rate for calculating both minimum-wage and overtime damages. The order did not rule on the proposed default judgment, resolve the damages calculation, or determine the amount owed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.