Carrillo v. Kay Waterproofing Corp.
- John Cronan
- 1:19-cv-01365-JPC
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Andres Carrillo v. Monster Construction, Judge Cronan required more support before deciding plaintiffs’ damages request for judgment against Ronald Duarte-Lopez.
The order affects the plaintiffs seeking damages from Ronald Duarte-Lopez, particularly Edson Abel Meza Alvarez and Prempeh-Mann, by requiring additional evidence and explanations before the court considers the requested default-judgment damages.
What happened
In Andres Carrillo et al. v. Monster Construction LLC et al., the plaintiffs asked for judgment because Ronald Duarte-Lopez had not defended the case. They submitted evidence seeking $113,450.89 in damages and $23,360.70 in attorneys’ fees and costs, and a hearing was scheduled for September 7, 2023.
The court identified several gaps. It asked for more evidence supporting Edson Abel Meza Alvarez’s damages, an explanation of different wage-calculation methods, and clarification about whether the plaintiffs could pursue damages for missing wage notices and statements. It also asked for a detailed calculation of those damages and a signed declaration from Prempeh-Mann.
Judge John P. Cronan did not decide the damages request in this order. He directed the plaintiffs to provide the missing declaration by September 6, allowed written submissions on the other issues, and required them to address the issues at the scheduled hearing.
The detailed version
- Carrillo v. Kay Waterproofing Corp. · No. 1:19-cv-01365-JPC
- John Cronan
- Sept. 5, 2023
Background
On August 17, 2023, the plaintiffs moved for default judgment against Ronald Duarte-Lopez, identified as the last remaining defendant. A default judgment is a judgment requested because a party has failed to defend the case. The plaintiffs submitted affidavits and exhibits supporting a proposed award of $113,450.89 in damages, consisting of $10,879.69 in compensatory damages, $10,879.69 in liquidated damages, $30,250.00 in statutory damages for alleged violations of New York Labor Law section 195(1), and $40,000.00 in statutory damages for alleged violations of section 195(3). They also sought $23,360.70 in attorneys’ fees and costs. A hearing on the requested damages was scheduled for September 7, 2023.
Issues Identified by the Court
The court said the plaintiffs’ submission required further explanation:
- The plaintiffs appeared to seek damages for Edson Abel Meza Alvarez, but they provided no supporting declaration from him, and counsel’s declaration did not describe his employment for Duarte-Lopez in enough detail. The court therefore could not determine Meza’s damages with reasonable certainty. The court also directed the plaintiffs to address a discrepancy between the complaint, which stated that Meza was paid a fixed salary of $950 per week, and the damages spreadsheet, which listed his credited weekly pay as $1,200. - The plaintiffs described a method for calculating the regular hourly rate by dividing weekly pay by weekly hours. The court observed that this method appeared to fit the calculations for Salas, Chuqui, Lucero, Prempeh-Mann, and Cordova, but not those for Carrillo, Diaz, and Meza. The court noted that the first group reported hourly pay while the second group reported weekly flat rates and requested an explanation, with any relevant legal authority. - The plaintiffs sought statutory damages under New York Labor Law sections 195(1) and 195(3) for allegedly missing wage notices and wage statements. The court noted that decisions in the district had found that failing to provide this information, without more, was insufficient to establish an injury required for standing in federal court. The court directed the plaintiffs to explain whether they continued to pursue these claims and, if so, why they had standing. It also required a detailed breakdown of the requested statutory damages. - The submission included an unsigned declaration for Prempeh-Mann. The court directed the plaintiffs to provide a signed declaration if they intended to seek damages on his behalf.
Order and Effect
Judge John P. Cronan did not grant or deny the motion for default judgment in this order. Instead, the court directed the plaintiffs to provide Prempeh-Mann’s signed declaration by the end of September 6, 2023, allowed written submissions on the other identified issues by that date, and required the plaintiffs to address the issues at the September 7 hearing. The opinion does not state the final outcome of the default-judgment or damages request.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.