Martinez v. 647 Bronx Corp.

S.D. New York

Martinez v. 647 Bronx Corp.

DecidedSeptember 13, 2024

Docket1:24-cv-01615

StatusUnknown

This text of Martinez v. 647 Bronx Corp. (Martinez v. 647 Bronx Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Martinez v. 647 Bronx Corp., (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Juan Anasticio Martinez Plaintiff, 24-CV-01615 (DEH) v. 647 Bronx Corp., et al., ORDER Defendant. DALE E. HO, United States District Judge: The above-captioned matter came before the Court on the motion of Plaintiff Juan Anasticio Martinez (“Plaintiff”) for entry of a default judgment against Defendants 647 Bronx Corp. (D/B/A Kennedy Chicken) and Kharullah Mohammad (“Defendants”) under Rule 55(b) (2)of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 55.2, see ECF Nos. 19-20. On August 14, 2024, the Court ordered Defendants to file any opposition to the motion for default judgment by August 28, 2024. See ECF No. 31. Defendants did not file an opposition. The Court further ordered Defendants to appear and show cause before this Court on September 11, 2024 why an order should not be issued granting a default judgment against Defendants. See id. The Court held a hearing for Plaintiff’s application on September 11, 2024, and Defendants failed to appear. This Court having considered the Complaint in this action, see ECF No. 1, the Declaration of Catalina Sojo in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, see ECF No. 27, together with the exhibits thereto, Defendants are found liable to Plaintiff for violating Plaintiff’s exclusive rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (“FLSA”), the N.Y. Labor Law §§ 190 et seq. and 650 et seq. (the “NYLL”), and the “spread of hours” and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor codified at N.Y. After the entry of default judgment, “[u]nless damages are certain, they must be proven in a post-default inquest where the defendant has an opportunity to contest the plaintiff's claims.” Norcia v. Dieber’s Castle Tavern, Ltd., 980 F. Supp. 2d 492, 500 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). By separate order, the Court will refer this case to the assigned Magistrate Judge for an inquest on the issue of damages. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff serve Defendants via overnight courier with a copy of this Order and file proof of such service on the docket within three business days.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2024 New York, New York

DALE E. HO United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Juan Anasticio Martinez Plaintiff, 24-CV-01615 (DEH) v. 647 Bronx Corp., et al., ORDER Defendant. DALE E. HO, United States District Judge: The above-captioned matter came before the Court on the motion of Plaintiff Juan Anasticio Martinez (“Plaintiff”) for entry of a default judgment against Defendants 647 Bronx Corp. (D/B/A Kennedy Chicken) and Kharullah Mohammad (“Defendants”) under Rule 55(b) (2)of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 55.2, see ECF Nos. 19-20. On August 14, 2024, the Court ordered Defendants to file any opposition to the motion for default judgment by August 28, 2024. See ECF No. 31. Defendants did not file an opposition. The Court further ordered Defendants to appear and show cause before this Court on September 11, 2024 why an order should not be issued granting a default judgment against Defendants. See id. The Court held a hearing for Plaintiff’s application on September 11, 2024, and Defendants failed to appear. This Court having considered the Complaint in this action, see ECF No. 1, the Declaration of Catalina Sojo in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, see ECF No. 27, together with the exhibits thereto, Defendants are found liable to Plaintiff for violating Plaintiff’s exclusive rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (“FLSA”), the N.Y. Labor Law §§ 190 et seq. and 650 et seq. (the “NYLL”), and the “spread of hours” and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor codified at N.Y. After the entry of default judgment, “[u]nless damages are certain, they must be proven in a post-default inquest where the defendant has an opportunity to contest the plaintiff's claims.” Norcia v. Dieber’s Castle Tavern, Ltd., 980 F. Supp. 2d 492, 500 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). By separate order, the Court will refer this case to the assigned Magistrate Judge for an inquest on the issue of damages. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff serve Defendants via overnight courier with a copy of this Order and file proof of such service on the docket within three business days.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2024 New York, New York

DALE E. HO United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Martinez v. 647 Bronx Corp., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-v-647-bronx-corp-nysd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack