USONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESST RDIICSTT ROIFC TN ECWOU YROTR K ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : FLORIDELIA SALAS, : : Plaintiff, : : -v- : 25 Civ. 5525 (JPC) : LAUNDRY 210 LLC d/b/a GRACIES LAUNDRY, et : ORDER al., : : Defendants. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge:

On September 9, 2025, Plaintiff Floridelia Salas moved for default judgment. Dkt. 16. A telephonic hearing regarding Plaintiff’s default judgment motion is scheduled for October 23, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to comply with Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) recordkeeping requirements, see

(c), but courts in this District have held that the FLSA does not “provide a private right of action for an employer's recordkeeping violation,” DeLorenzo v. Coffey, No. 24 Civ. 1735 (JPO),

, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2025) (collecting cases).1 Plaintiff should thus file a letter to the Court by October 18, 2025, 0F

1 Plaintiff’s Complaint also alleges that “Defendants, in violation of the FLSA, failed to pay Plaintiff at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour and the applicable New York State minimum wage of $15.00 per hour (effective December 31, 2024) for each hour worked, in violation of 29 U.S.C.§ 206(a)(1).” Dkt. 1. (“Complaint”) ¶ 50. But the Complaint elsewhere alleges that Plaintiff was paid between $12.00 and $13.50 per hour, id. ¶ 2, which is above the minimum wage required by federal law, see

(a)(1). Moreover, although FLSA does not “excuse noncompliance with any Federal or State law or municipal ordinance establishing a minimum wage higher than the minimum wage established under [federal law],”

§ 218, FLSA also does not create a federal cause of action for violations of New York State or New York City labor law. See Alfonso v. Mougis Logistics Corp., No. 21 Civ. 5302 (LJL),

, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2021) (holding that a plaintiff cannot state a FLSA minimum wage claim “as long as a Plaintiff's average wage exceeds the federal minimum wage”). explaining why the facts alleged in the Complaint state a cause of action under federal law. Plaintiff's letter should also explain why, if the Complaint does not state a claim under federal law, the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state-law claims. Specifically, Plaintiff must explain why her state-law claims relating to wage payments that were allegedly below the minimum wage “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact” with her FLSA recordkeeping claim. United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs,

(1966). Additionally, Plaintiff's letter should explain why, in the event that the Court declines to enter default judgment on her federal claim, proceeding to judgment on her state-law claims “serves judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity.” Guanglei Jiao v. Shang Shang Qian Inc., No. 18 Civ. 5624 (ARR) (VMS),

, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2020) (“[A] court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims at the default judgment stage if it denies default judgment as to all federal claims—so long as doing so serves judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity.”). SO ORDERED. Vbf2_ Dated: October 16, 2025 ° New York, New York JOHN P. CRONAN United States District Judge