Ortega v. The Matilda Gourmet Deli Inc

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MARCO ANTONIO ORTEGA, individually ) and on behalf of all other employees similarly ) 1:21-cv-10212-LGS situated ) _ [_ P_ R_ O__ P_ O__ S_ E_ D__ ] DEFAULT ) JUDGMENT Plaintiff,) ) -v- ) THE MATILDA GOURMET DELI INC. ) (DBA GREEN GOURMET DELI), DE ) REIMER FOOD CORP. (DBA DE REIMER ) GOURMET DELI & GRILL), NEREID GOURMET DELI INC, GREEN ARROW GOURMET DELI CORP., OMAR TAREB, SAM TAREB AND MOIMER MALIK MOHAMMED TAREB.

Defendants.

This action was commenced on December 1, 2021 (Docket # 1) Summons were issued for individual defendant on January 20, 2022 (Docket # 5). Service was then made on the defendant on January 27, 2022 (Docket #9).

To date, no defendant has answered the Complaint or otherwise appeared or moved, and the Clerk of this Court has certified the default of Defendants (Docket 18) The time for answering the Complaint having expired, it is NOW, on motion of Plaintiff, by his attorney Stillman Legal PC., It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUD GED AND D ECREE D : that, pursuant to Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff has judgment -Fhat the Phaintiff have judgment_jointhyand severally against the Defendant THE MATILDA GOURMET DELI INC. (DBA GREEN GOURMET DELI), DE REIMER FOOD CORP. (DBA DE REIMER GOURMET DELI & GRILL), NEREID GOURMET DELI INC, GREEN ARROW GOURMET DELI CORP., OMAR TAREB, SAM TAREB AND MOIMER MALIK MOHAMMED TAREB, in the-GRAND—ameount-of $98,220-00—whieh-inehtrde-A)- violation of New York Labor Law $193 and $195 in the amount of $5,000 statutory damages— for +ielation of □ CW" Y erk | a b or | ar $ 10 | in th eat eunt of ¢ 5 000 ®) VIVIG N VV avy avy WV cl WU p PUT. TD I ——Fhatthe Plaintiffs awarded attorneys fees in the amount of $5,897 00(E)- amounts to be determined by post-default judgment inquest.

required by NYEE $1984). he Complaint alleges that Defendants violated the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Act, the New York Minimum Wage Act and the overtime, spread-of-hours, notice and recordkeeping, and statement provisions of the New York Labor Law. Except with respect to the spread-of-hours claim, the omplaint sufficiently pleads these claims to establish liability as a matter of law. See City of New York v. Mickalis Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114, 137 (2d Cir. 2011) ("[A] district court is required to determine whether the plaintiff's llegations establish the defendant's liability as a matter of law."). The Complaint adequately alleges that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff the applicable hourly rate, willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime compensation and to provide Plaintiff with written notice of his rate(s) of pay and/or dates of work covered by any payments The Complaint does not adequately allege that Defendant failed to pay one additional hour’s pay at the asic minimum wage rate before allowances for each day Plaintiff soread of hours exceeded ten hours, because the omplaint does not allege any day on which Plaintiff's spread of hours exceeded ten hours. order referring the case for a damages inquest will issue separately.

September 23, 2022 York, New York Tmnnwa & ae