Teoh v. Manhasset Restaurant, LLC

• Court: District Court, E.D. New York
• Decided: June 23, 2025
• Docket: 2:22-cv-04110
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Boon Hooi Teoh,

Plaintiff, 2:22-cv-4110 -v- (NJC) (LGD)

Manhasset Restaurant LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER NUSRAT J. CHOUDHURY, United States District Judge: On October 24, 2024, following trial, the jury returned a verdict in this case for Plaintiff Boon Hooi Teoh (“Teoh”) on Teoh’s claims for unpaid overtime wages and unpaid spread of hours wages under New York Labor Law (“NYLL”), 12 N.Y.C.R.R. §§ 146-1.4 and 146-1.6. (Verdict Form, ECF No. 92.) On November 19, 2024, this Court entered judgment awarding Teoh $184,067.52 in compensatory damages for unpaid overtime and spread of hours wages and prejudgment interest. (Judgment, ECF No. 94.) On December 15, 2024, Teoh filed a Motion for Attorney’s Fees (“Motion”), seeking $93,764.67 in fees and $8,382.25 in costs. (Mot. Attorney’s Fees, ECF No. 95; Aff. Supp. Mot. Attorney’s Fees, ECF No. 96.) This Court referred the Motion to Magistrate Judge Lee G. Dunst, and, on April 10, 2025, Judge Dunst issued a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”) recommending that Teoh instead be awarded $48,170.77 in attorney’s fees and $8,382.25 in costs. (Attorney’s Fees R&R, ECF No. 112.) A copy of the R&R was provided to all counsel via ECF on April 10, 2025. (See Id.) The R&R instructed that any objections to the R&R were required to be submitted in writing to the Clerk of Court within fourteen (14) days of service of the R&R. (Attorney’s Fees R&R at 22.) Consequently, the deadline to object to the R&R was April 24, 2025. The date for filing any objections to the R&R has thus expired, and no party has filed an objection to the R&R. In reviewing a report and recommendation, the 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)(C). If no objections are filed, a district court reviews a report and recommendation for clear error. King v. Paradise Auto Sales I, Inc., No. 15-cv-1188, 2016 WL 4595991, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2016) (citation omitted); Covey v. Simonton, 481 F. Supp. 2d 224, 226 (E.D.N.Y. 2007).

Because no party has timely filed objections to the R&R, I may review the R&R for clear error. King, 2016 WL 4595991, at *1. Nevertheless, I reviewed the R&R de novo out of an abundance of caution. Having reviewed the motion papers, the applicable law, and the R&R, I adopt the thorough and well-reasoned R&R’s recommendation as to the amount of attorney’s fees and costs to be award to Teoh. Accordingly, Teoh’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees (ECF No. 95) is granted in part, with reduced rates and hours as set forth in the R&R. The Court awards Teoh $56,553.02 as follows: $48,170.77 in attorney’s fees and $8,382.25 in costs. Dated: Central Islip, New York June 23, 2025 ________/s/ Nusrat J. Choudhury_______ NUSRAT J. CHOUDHURY United States District Judge