Sarmiento v. Flagge Contracting Inc.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-09718
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sarmiento v. Flagge Contracting Inc., Judge Broderick adopted a damages recommendation after finding no clear error.
The seven plaintiffs—Luis Alberto Espinoza Sarmiento, Geovani Perez, Alfredo Perez, Jasmany Adrian Ortiz Fernandez, Milton Hernandez, Wilson Hernandez, and Cirilo Torres—and the defendants Flagge Contracting Inc., Francisco Rodriguez, and Miguel Rodriguez Monteiro.
What happened
In Sarmiento v. Flagge Contracting Inc., seven former Flagge employees sued the company and two owners under federal and New York wage laws. The court had previously entered a default judgment establishing the defendants’ liability.
The case was sent to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott to determine damages. Judge Cott recommended awarding the plaintiffs $942,648.26, and no party objected to that recommendation.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick reviewed the recommendation for clear error, found none, adopted it in full, directed the Clerk to enter judgment, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Sarmiento v. Flagge Contracting Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-09718
- Vernon Broderick
- May 1, 2024
Background
Luis Alberto Espinoza Sarmiento, Geovani Perez, Alfredo Perez, Jasmany Adrian Ortiz Fernandez, Milton Hernandez, Wilson Hernandez, and Cirilo Torres sued Flagge Contracting Inc. and its owners, Francisco Rodriguez and Miguel Rodriguez Monteiro. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The opinion describes the plaintiffs as former employees of Flagge.
Certificates of default were issued, and the court had previously granted the plaintiffs a default judgment as to liability. A default judgment establishes liability when a defendant has not defended the case; the damages amount was then referred to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott for an inquest.
Report and Recommendation
On February 27, 2024, Magistrate Judge Cott issued a 29-page Report and Recommendation stating that the plaintiffs should be awarded $942,648.26. The parties were given fourteen days to object, but none filed objections or requested additional time.
Because there were no timely objections, Judge Broderick reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error on the record. The court found no clear error.
Ruling and Disposition
Judge Broderick adopted Magistrate Judge Cott’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Clerk’s Office was directed to terminate any open motions, enter judgment in accordance with the order, and close the case. The order itself is based on the defendants’ default and the court’s review of the recommended damages, rather than a contested trial on liability.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.