UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. _ EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. . ee ce et te □□□ ee ee eee rene anren ree ceen re □ -MARCO ANTONIO SANCHEZ JUAREZ and _JANET GUTIERREZ, Plaintiffs, □
MEMORANDUM & ORDER . 156-40 GRILL LLC d/b/a TAVERNA GREEK 15-CV-5081 (CBA) (LGD) ‘GRILL, EVANGELOS. POLLATOS, MARIA -KARRAS-POLLATOS, MICHAEL . SIDERAKIS, and KONSTANTINOS SIKLAS, □ Defendants. nee ee ne ee ee ee ee ene ee eee ee eK AMON, United States District Judge: □
BACKGROUND Plaintiffs Marco Antonio Sanchez Juarez and Janet Gutierrez brought this action against 156-40 Grill LLC, Evangelos Pollatos, Maria Karras-Pollatos, Michael Siderakis, and -
_ Konstantinos Siklas, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and New York . Labor Law (““NYLL”). (ECF Docket Entry (“D.E.”) #1.) Theld a two-day bench trial on May 16. and 17, 2022. On March 31, 2023, I issued a decision making certain post-trial findings of fact. and conclusions of law. (D.E. # 124.) I found that Defendants Pollatos and Siklas were joint □
. employers and liable under FLSA and NYLL from March 24, 2013 through January 21, 2014, and that Siderakis was a joint employer with them from March 24, 2013 through September 30, 2013, □
(Id, 25-26.) On November 28, 2023, I issued a decision awarding damages totaling $1 68,962.04 | Sanchez Juarez and $22,312.22 for Gutierrez. (D.E. # 136 (“Damages M&O”),) .
Siderakis appealed my decisions to the Second Circuit. He argued that I made three errors by (1) finding that he was Plaintiffs’ employer under FLSA and NYLL, (2) imputing to ‘concessions made by Pollatos and Karras-Pollatos in post-trial briefing regarding damages gatculations, and (3) failing to separately calculate damages through September 2013 when he
. | □
ceased to be Sanchez Juarez’s employer. Br. of Appellant at 2, Sanchez Juarez v. Siderakis, □□□ 23-7972 (2d Cir. May 13, 2024), Dkt. Entry 44.1. The Second Circuit rejected his first two claims agreed with his third. Sanchez. Juarez vy. Siderakis, No. 23-7972, 2024 WL 5135383 (2d Cir,
Dec. 17, 2024), Specifically, the Circuit affirmed my finding that Siderakis was Plaintiffs’ joint employer through September 2013. Id. at *2-3. Next, the Circuit rejected Siderakis’s argument
_ that I “erred by imputing to him concessions regarding damages that his co-defendants, Pollatos and Katras-Pollatos, made in their post-trial briefing.” Id. at.*3 n.4. The Court explained that there was “no error” because “Siderakis ... did not dispute plaintiffs’ evidence of damages” and □ I had made my “damage calculation... based on the evidence adduced during the bench trial and
_ at the hearing,” Id. Lastly, the Circuit held that because I did not “specifly| the damages .incurred by Sanchez Juarez during the precise period (March-September 2013) for which Siderakis is jointly and. severally liable... Siderakis ... cannot comply with the judgment.” Id. at #3 The
Second Circuit remanded for me to “specify the damages for which Siderakis is jointly and
severally liable and amend the judgment accordingly.” Id. DISCUSSION L first note that Siderakis raises two issues before me, both of which are foreclosed by the □
Second Circuit, Specifically, he requests to take further testimony from Plaintiffs on the hours
_ they worked during the relevant period, and he challenges the assumption underlying the ‘calculation of the damages for Plaintiffs that Sanchez Juarez worked an average of 81 hours per
_ week during the relevant period. As the Second Circuit described it, Siderakis chose to “focus[]
- exclusively on the question of whether” he was an employer under ELSA and NYLL, rather than □ challenge Sanchez Juarez’s evidence of damages. Sanchez Juarez, 2024 WL 5135383, at *3 □□□□
remand to amend judgment for a more precise disposition of damages is not an invitation, nor
sufficient cause, to reopen a trial in which Siderakis could and did participate. See Saint v. United States, 243 F.R.D. 50, 51-52 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (denying motion to reopen trial when the losing party wanted to take a “second bite at the apple” by introducing new testimony she couild have elicited at the first trial); CSX Transp., Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 521 F.3d 1300, 1302 (11th -
. Cir. 2008) (whether to reopen trial on remand is well within the district court’s discretion).
Moreover, the mandate rule and settled caselaw foreclose a reinterrogation of the methodology □□□ calculating damages. United States v. Husband, 312 F.3d 247, 251 (7th Cir, 2002) (An appellate court “may explicitly remand certain issues exclusive of all others; but the same result may also . be accomplished implicitly if the opinion identifies a discrete, particular error that can be corrected | on remand without the need for a redetermination of other issues. . . . [T]he district court is limited ‘to correcting that error.”) (cleaned up); e.g., Jemine v. Dennis, 901 F. Supp. 2d 365, 378 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (relying on the same methodology for calculating damages). i now turn to what is essentially a mathematical calculation. In the Damages M&O, Lused
an average weekly hour model to calculate damages for Sanchez Juarez spanning over five
different periods. (See Damages M&O 6.) These divisions, and the calculations of damages for the periods, were based on trial testimony that [ incorporated into findings of fact. a. 4.) □
_ Plaintiffs propose that to calculate the damages for which Siderakis is jointly and severally liable I use the average weekly damages for the August 1, 2013 through December 30, 2013 petiod and
cap that. period at September 30, 2013. (D.E. # 148 (“PL Ltr.”) 1-2.) I adopt this method to - calculate the damages for which Siderakis is jointly and severally liable.
Below in each section are the charts as they appeared in the Damages M&O, each followed by the same chart capped at September 30, 2013, representing the portion of damages for which
_ Siderakis is jointly and severally liable. (See Damages M&O for further details on the calculation
and categorization of damages.) Unpaid Wages Original Chart ee Promised “Weekly Salary "Unpaid Wages Unpaid |. SimePeriod |) Ue lp | peewee | Wages □□□ □□ | = 25) | Weekly Salary |. Paid(avg.) | PerWeek | ee pe ep _ Period. □□ March 24, 2013- April 11, 2013 $1,000.00 | $0.00 $1,000.00 $2,714.29 □ April 12, 2013- April 21,2013 |. (employee: walkout April 22, 2013-uly | 000.00 $833.33 $166.67 $2,404.81 31,2013 August 1, 2013- acai | December 30, 2013 | $1,000.00 $833.33 $166.67 $3,619. □□ □ December 31, . □ 2013-January 21, $1,000.00 $833.33 $166.67 $523.82 2014 Updated Chart
Hime Feriod | weekly Salary | Paid(avg) | Per Week =| Bening ER Ee Period March 24, 2013- |. 5 i April 11, 2013 $1,000.00 | $0.00 $1,000.00 $2,714.29 April 12, 2013- April 21, 2013 □ (employee walkout April 22, 2013-July | ¢1 990.00 | ~—-$833.33 $166.67 $2,404.81 □□ 31, 2013 August 1, 2013- □□ September 30, $1,000.00 $833.33 $166.67 $1,452.41 2013 _ Total unpaid wages through September 30, 2013: $6,571.51.
Unpaid Overtime
_ Original Chart LT eo a | | Overtime one ,, | OvertimePer | Unpaid □□ poh ee ee SS eee ies cei yertime Rate BEAD RE AE EE Saag SS eS So en a wget TimePeriod | Hours ‘(L.5x Regular \ Week —__| Overtime Per fee Worked-40) 0 po MEE oo __ Overtime Rate, J be March 24, 2013- April 11,2013 $37.50 $2,043.75 $5,547.32 □ April 12, 2013- April 21, 2013 (employee walkout 31, 2013.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. _ EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. . ee ce et te □□□ ee ee eee rene anren ree ceen re □ -MARCO ANTONIO SANCHEZ JUAREZ and _JANET GUTIERREZ, Plaintiffs, □
MEMORANDUM & ORDER . 156-40 GRILL LLC d/b/a TAVERNA GREEK 15-CV-5081 (CBA) (LGD) ‘GRILL, EVANGELOS. POLLATOS, MARIA -KARRAS-POLLATOS, MICHAEL . SIDERAKIS, and KONSTANTINOS SIKLAS, □ Defendants. nee ee ne ee ee ee ee ene ee eee ee eK AMON, United States District Judge: □
BACKGROUND Plaintiffs Marco Antonio Sanchez Juarez and Janet Gutierrez brought this action against 156-40 Grill LLC, Evangelos Pollatos, Maria Karras-Pollatos, Michael Siderakis, and -
_ Konstantinos Siklas, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and New York . Labor Law (““NYLL”). (ECF Docket Entry (“D.E.”) #1.) Theld a two-day bench trial on May 16. and 17, 2022. On March 31, 2023, I issued a decision making certain post-trial findings of fact. and conclusions of law. (D.E. # 124.) I found that Defendants Pollatos and Siklas were joint □
. employers and liable under FLSA and NYLL from March 24, 2013 through January 21, 2014, and that Siderakis was a joint employer with them from March 24, 2013 through September 30, 2013, □
(Id, 25-26.) On November 28, 2023, I issued a decision awarding damages totaling $1 68,962.04 | Sanchez Juarez and $22,312.22 for Gutierrez. (D.E. # 136 (“Damages M&O”),) .
Siderakis appealed my decisions to the Second Circuit. He argued that I made three errors by (1) finding that he was Plaintiffs’ employer under FLSA and NYLL, (2) imputing to ‘concessions made by Pollatos and Karras-Pollatos in post-trial briefing regarding damages gatculations, and (3) failing to separately calculate damages through September 2013 when he
. | □
ceased to be Sanchez Juarez’s employer. Br. of Appellant at 2, Sanchez Juarez v. Siderakis, □□□ 23-7972 (2d Cir. May 13, 2024), Dkt. Entry 44.1. The Second Circuit rejected his first two claims agreed with his third. Sanchez. Juarez vy. Siderakis, No. 23-7972, 2024 WL 5135383 (2d Cir,
Dec. 17, 2024), Specifically, the Circuit affirmed my finding that Siderakis was Plaintiffs’ joint employer through September 2013. Id. at *2-3. Next, the Circuit rejected Siderakis’s argument
_ that I “erred by imputing to him concessions regarding damages that his co-defendants, Pollatos and Katras-Pollatos, made in their post-trial briefing.” Id. at.*3 n.4. The Court explained that there was “no error” because “Siderakis ... did not dispute plaintiffs’ evidence of damages” and □ I had made my “damage calculation... based on the evidence adduced during the bench trial and
_ at the hearing,” Id. Lastly, the Circuit held that because I did not “specifly| the damages .incurred by Sanchez Juarez during the precise period (March-September 2013) for which Siderakis is jointly and. severally liable... Siderakis ... cannot comply with the judgment.” Id. at #3 The
Second Circuit remanded for me to “specify the damages for which Siderakis is jointly and
severally liable and amend the judgment accordingly.” Id. DISCUSSION L first note that Siderakis raises two issues before me, both of which are foreclosed by the □
Second Circuit, Specifically, he requests to take further testimony from Plaintiffs on the hours
_ they worked during the relevant period, and he challenges the assumption underlying the ‘calculation of the damages for Plaintiffs that Sanchez Juarez worked an average of 81 hours per
_ week during the relevant period. As the Second Circuit described it, Siderakis chose to “focus[]
- exclusively on the question of whether” he was an employer under ELSA and NYLL, rather than □ challenge Sanchez Juarez’s evidence of damages. Sanchez Juarez, 2024 WL 5135383, at *3 □□□□
remand to amend judgment for a more precise disposition of damages is not an invitation, nor
sufficient cause, to reopen a trial in which Siderakis could and did participate. See Saint v. United States, 243 F.R.D. 50, 51-52 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (denying motion to reopen trial when the losing party wanted to take a “second bite at the apple” by introducing new testimony she couild have elicited at the first trial); CSX Transp., Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 521 F.3d 1300, 1302 (11th -
. Cir. 2008) (whether to reopen trial on remand is well within the district court’s discretion).
Moreover, the mandate rule and settled caselaw foreclose a reinterrogation of the methodology □□□ calculating damages. United States v. Husband, 312 F.3d 247, 251 (7th Cir, 2002) (An appellate court “may explicitly remand certain issues exclusive of all others; but the same result may also . be accomplished implicitly if the opinion identifies a discrete, particular error that can be corrected | on remand without the need for a redetermination of other issues. . . . [T]he district court is limited ‘to correcting that error.”) (cleaned up); e.g., Jemine v. Dennis, 901 F. Supp. 2d 365, 378 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (relying on the same methodology for calculating damages). i now turn to what is essentially a mathematical calculation. In the Damages M&O, Lused
an average weekly hour model to calculate damages for Sanchez Juarez spanning over five
different periods. (See Damages M&O 6.) These divisions, and the calculations of damages for the periods, were based on trial testimony that [ incorporated into findings of fact. a. 4.) □
_ Plaintiffs propose that to calculate the damages for which Siderakis is jointly and severally liable I use the average weekly damages for the August 1, 2013 through December 30, 2013 petiod and
cap that. period at September 30, 2013. (D.E. # 148 (“PL Ltr.”) 1-2.) I adopt this method to - calculate the damages for which Siderakis is jointly and severally liable.
Below in each section are the charts as they appeared in the Damages M&O, each followed by the same chart capped at September 30, 2013, representing the portion of damages for which
_ Siderakis is jointly and severally liable. (See Damages M&O for further details on the calculation
and categorization of damages.) Unpaid Wages Original Chart ee Promised “Weekly Salary "Unpaid Wages Unpaid |. SimePeriod |) Ue lp | peewee | Wages □□□ □□ | = 25) | Weekly Salary |. Paid(avg.) | PerWeek | ee pe ep _ Period. □□ March 24, 2013- April 11, 2013 $1,000.00 | $0.00 $1,000.00 $2,714.29 □ April 12, 2013- April 21,2013 |. (employee: walkout April 22, 2013-uly | 000.00 $833.33 $166.67 $2,404.81 31,2013 August 1, 2013- acai | December 30, 2013 | $1,000.00 $833.33 $166.67 $3,619. □□ □ December 31, . □ 2013-January 21, $1,000.00 $833.33 $166.67 $523.82 2014 Updated Chart
Hime Feriod | weekly Salary | Paid(avg) | Per Week =| Bening ER Ee Period March 24, 2013- |. 5 i April 11, 2013 $1,000.00 | $0.00 $1,000.00 $2,714.29 April 12, 2013- April 21, 2013 □ (employee walkout April 22, 2013-July | ¢1 990.00 | ~—-$833.33 $166.67 $2,404.81 □□ 31, 2013 August 1, 2013- □□ September 30, $1,000.00 $833.33 $166.67 $1,452.41 2013 _ Total unpaid wages through September 30, 2013: $6,571.51.
Unpaid Overtime
_ Original Chart LT eo a | | Overtime one ,, | OvertimePer | Unpaid □□ poh ee ee SS eee ies cei yertime Rate BEAD RE AE EE Saag SS eS So en a wget TimePeriod | Hours ‘(L.5x Regular \ Week —__| Overtime Per fee Worked-40) 0 po MEE oo __ Overtime Rate, J be March 24, 2013- April 11,2013 $37.50 $2,043.75 $5,547.32 □ April 12, 2013- April 21, 2013 (employee walkout 31, 2013. 54.5 $37.50 $2,043.75 $29,488.39 □ August 1, 2013- December 30, 2013 41 $37.50 $1,537.50 $33,385.71 December 31, □ 2013-January 21, |- 4} $37.50 $1,537.50 $4,832.14 2014 - Updated Chart
Lo Worked-40). | (NCES | Overtime Rate) | March 24, 2013- April 12, 2013- April 21, 2013 (employee walkout - | April 22, 2013-July |. □□□
August 1, 2013- . September 30, 4] $37.50 $1,537.50 $13,398.21 |. 2013 Total unpaid overtime through September 30, 2013: $48,433.92. et
Spread of Time oe
Original Chart
ee Shortfall Per Pe ee Per ‘Week Se ee Period. March 24, 2013- . April 11, 2013 $50.75 $137.75 . . April 12, 2013- Apri! 21, 2013 (employee walkout April 22, 2013-July $50.75 | . 31, 2013 $50.75 $732.25 | August 1, 2013- December 30, 2013 $43.50 $944.57 □ December 31, , . 2013-January 21, $48.00 $150.86 . 2014 Updated Chart .
Spreadof ee | ee ef Per Week 1 yoy ARES MO SR □□ ee een eke Period ESE March 24, 2013- . April 11, 2013 $50.75 $137.75 □ April 12, 2013- . April 21, 2013 oo, (employee walkout . | April 22, 2013-July 31, 2013 $50.75 $732.25 August 1, 2013- | . September 30, $43.50 . $379.07 2013 Total spread of hours damages through September 30, 2013: $1,249.07, Thus, the total damages through September 30, 2013 are $56,254.50.
Liquidated Damages and Interest
As discussed in the Damages M&O at 12-13, Plaintiffs are entitled to liquidated damages equal to the sum of their unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, and spread of hours wages, as □□□□ as prejudgment interest of 9% per annum on those wage amounts. Thus, liquidated damages for Sanchez Juarez through September 30, 2013 total to $56,254.51. Plaintiffs’ suggested approach □ of maintaining the same midpoint date (August 22, 2013) to calculate prejudgment interest is reasonable and Siderakis does not make any arguments to the contrary. (PI. Ltr, 2 n,1)'; see □□□□□ Ying Ying Dai v. ABNS NY Ine., 490 F, Supp. 3d 645, 662 (E.D.N.Y. 2020). Therefore, | will calculate prejudgment interest for damages arising out of Sanchez Juarez’s employment through . September 30, 2013 at a rate of $13.87 per day (($56,254.51*0.09)/365) through December 1, 2023, the date judgment was entered, This yields total prejudgment interest of $52,993.60. □
Siderakis’s total liability as relates to Sanchez Juarez, excluding any attorney’s fees □□□ post-judgment interest, is summarized as follows: |
Unpaid wages, overtime wages, spread of $56,254.51 □ hours wages Liguidated damages $56,254.51 te Prejudgment interest $52,993.60 Total $165,502.62 CONCLUSION □□ The Clerk of Court is directed to amend this Court’s judgment dated December 1, 2023 (DE. # 137) in accordance with this Memoranduin and Order.
SO ORDERED. A SY Dated: March , 2025 Brookigh, New. York /s/Carol Bagley Amon. Carol Bagley Amon United States District Judge ~
! Indeed, Plaintiffs note that if [ calculated prejudgment interest using the midpoint of Sanchez Juarez’s employment _ by Siderakis prejudgment interest would toll to a greater amount. (PI. Lir.2n.J.) Thus, Siderakis does not object to a caleulation of prejudgment interest that lowers his total liability.