Avedana v. Casa Ofelias Bakery LLC

• Court: District Court, E.D. New York
• Decided: September 17, 2021
• Docket: 2:20-cv-02214
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------X Migdalia Avedana, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,

Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER v. 20-CV-02214 (DG) (AKT)

Casa Ofelia’s Bakery LLC; Casa Ofelia’s Corp doing business as Casa Ofelia Bakery; Martin Rojas; and Sussy Gricelda Agurcia,

Defendants. ------------------------------------------------------------X DIANE GUJARATI, United States District Judge: On May 16, 2020, Plaintiff Migdalia Avedana commenced this action against Defendants Casa Ofelia’s Bakery LLC, Casa Ofelia’s Corp, Martin Rojas, and Sussy Gricelda Agurcia (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. See generally Complaint, ECF No. 1. Defendants were served, see Executed Summonses, ECF Nos. 7-10, but did not appear in the action, and the Clerk of Court entered default against them on October 14, 2020, see Entry of Default, ECF No. 12. On January 25, 2021, Plaintiff moved for default judgment against Defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) and Local Rule 55.2(b). See Motion for Default Judgment (the “Motion”), ECF No. 13; Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment, ECF No. 13-1. I referred the Motion to Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). See February 3, 2021 Order. On August 19, 2021, Judge Tomlinson issued a thorough and well-reasoned R&R recommending that I grant Plaintiff’s Motion in part, to the extent set forth in Judge Tomlinson’s R&R. See Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 27. No objection has been filed to the R&R, and the time for doing so has passed. See id. at 39. A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(b). To accept those portions of an R&R to which no timely objection has been made, “a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Jarvis v. N. Am. Globex Fund L.P., 823 F. Supp. 2d 161, 163 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (quotation marks omitted). Clear error will be found only when, upon review of the entire record, the Court is left with “the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Snow, 462 F.3d 55, 72 (2d Cir. 2006) (quotation marks omitted). I have reviewed Judge Tomlinson’s R&R, and, having found no clear error, adopt the R&R in its entirety. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment is granted to the extent set forth in Judge Tomlinson’s R&R, and Plaintiff is awarded the following damages: (1) $42,823 in unpaid

overtime compensation; (2) $42,823 in liquidated damages; (3) pre-judgment interest on $42,823, running from June 6, 2019 until the entry of judgment at the rate of 9% per annum to be calculated by the Clerk of the Court; (4) $10,000 for wage and notice violations; (5) $4,816.00 in attorney’s fees; and (6) $550.00 in costs. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of this Order on Defendants. SO ORDERED. /s/ Diane Gujarat i DIANE GUJARATI United States District Judge Dated: September 17, 2021 Brooklyn, New York