Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Oct. 13, 2023

Lopez v. MNAF Pizzeria, Inc.

Judge
Andrew Carter
Docket
1:18-cv-06033
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
13
EmploymentFlsaFee Petition
In one sentence

In Lopez v. MNAF Pizzeria, Judge Carter entered judgment for Lopez and Campos, awarding damages, interest, attorney’s fees, and costs.

Who this affects

Ivan Lopez and Kevin Campos received monetary judgments against MNAF Pizzeria, Inc. and Musa Nesheiwat, including damages, prejudgment interest, attorney’s fees, and costs.

What happened

In Lopez v. MNAF Pizzeria, Inc., Ivan Lopez and Kevin Campos sued MNAF Pizzeria, Inc. and Musa Nesheiwat under federal and New York wage laws. Earlier rulings found the defendants liable on all of the plaintiffs’ claims, including minimum-wage, overtime, spread-of-hours, tip-retention, wage-deduction, unpaid-wage, and wage-notice claims.

The court calculated Lopez’s damages at $97,105.00 and Campos’s damages at $48,760.00, including unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and statutory damages. It also awarded prejudgment interest of $29,162.73 to Lopez and $11,607.75 to Campos, plus $72,059.25 in attorney’s fees and $3,776.14 in costs.

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. treated the plaintiffs’ requests as unopposed because the defendants did not respond, found the requested calculations and fees reasonable, entered judgment, and directed the Clerk to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Lopez v. MNAF Pizzeria, Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-06033
Judge
Andrew Carter
Date
Oct. 13, 2023

Background

Ivan Lopez and Kevin Campos brought claims against MNAF Pizzeria, Inc. and Musa Nesheiwat under the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law, and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act. The claims involved minimum wages, overtime, spread-of-hours pay, tip retention, wage deductions, unpaid wages, and wage notices and pay statements.

In an earlier order, the court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. The court found that the plaintiffs were covered employees, that Nesheiwat was personally liable, and that the defendants were liable on several claims, including minimum-wage, overtime, unlawful-deduction, and Wage Theft Prevention Act claims. After a two-day bench trial, the court found the defendants liable on the remaining spread-of-hours, illegal-tip-retention, and failure-to-pay-wages claims. The court therefore found the defendants liable on all of the plaintiffs’ claims.

The plaintiffs later submitted damages calculations and moved for attorney’s fees and costs. The defendants did not meet the deadline to respond. After ordering the defendants to explain why the requests should not be treated as unopposed, the court deemed the requests unopposed.

Damages

The court found that Lopez worked 48 hours per week during the periods described in the opinion, was paid $5 per hour, and was not paid the required overtime or spread-of-hours premium. The court found that Campos regularly worked 36 hours per week, was not paid the required spread-of-hours premium, and was not paid $130 for his last week of work. The court did not award Campos overtime wages because it did not find that he worked more than 40 hours per week.

The court awarded Lopez $34,020.00 in minimum wages, $6,355.00 in overtime wages, and $3,177.50 in spread-of-hours wages. It awarded Campos $18,180.00 in minimum wages, $1,070.00 in spread-of-hours wages, and $130.00 in unpaid wages.

The court also awarded liquidated damages—additional damages generally equal to the unpaid wages—for the wage violations. Lopez received $43,552.50 in liquidated damages, and Campos received $19,380.00. Each plaintiff received $10,000.00 in statutory damages for violations of New York’s wage-notice and pay-statement requirements.

Prejudgment Interest

Applying New York’s nine-percent annual interest rate, the court awarded Lopez $29,162.73 in prejudgment interest and Campos $11,607.75. The court used November 23, 2015, as Lopez’s midpoint date and August 30, 2016, as Campos’s midpoint date for calculating interest.

Attorney’s Fees and Costs

The plaintiffs’ lawyers submitted billing records for 221.6 hours of work and requested $72,059.25 in attorney’s fees and $3,776.14 in costs. The court found the lawyers’ hourly rates reasonable and found the hours reasonable because the case proceeded from the complaint through discovery, depositions, summary-judgment briefing, a two-day bench trial, and post-trial briefing. The court awarded the full requested amounts.

Judgment

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. entered judgment awarding Lopez $97,105.00 in damages and Campos $48,760.00 in damages, plus the stated prejudgment interest. The plaintiffs jointly received $72,059.25 in attorney’s fees and $3,776.14 in costs. The court directed the Clerk to close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 13-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.