Amezguita v. Dynasty Insulation, Inc.
| Decision Date | 14 September 2012 |
| Docket Number | CV 10-1153 MV/CG |
| Parties | FRANCISCO AMEZGUITA, SR. and FRANCISCO AMEZGUITA, JR., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. DYNASTY INSULATION, INC. Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on United State District Judge Martha Vazquez's Order of Reference. (Doc. 26). Judge Vazquez recently granted Plaintiff's motion for default judgment against Defendant Dynasty Insulation and then referred the case to this Court for recommendations regarding the appropriate award of damages. (Doc. 25; Doc. 26; Doc. 27). The Court has since requested two supplemental briefs from Plaintiffs in an effort to determine the appropriate damage award. (See, Doc. 31; Doc. 35). Plaintiffs have provided supplemental briefs and now request an award of damages of $149,312.25, including attorney's fees and costs. (Doc. 36 at 6). The Court, having considered the Plaintiffs' filings, the relevant law, and otherwise being fully advised in the premises, RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's request be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
The complaint asserts that Defendant Dynasty Insulation failed to pay appropriateregular and overtime wages for work performed by Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees. (Doc. 1 at 2-3). Plaintiffs have asserted claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act, N.M.S.A. 1978 § 50-4-20 et seq. ("MWA"), and the New Mexico Public Works Minimum Wage Act, N.M.S.A. 1978 § 13-4-10 et seq ("PWMWA"). (Id. at 1-8). Plaintiffs seek compensatory, punitive, and statutory damages, their reasonable costs and attorney fees, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. (Id. at 11-12).
The case was initially brought by the two named Plaintiffs - Francisco Amezguita, Sr., and Francisco Amezguita, Jr. However, during the course of the litigation, Plaintiffs sought to include an additional twenty-three employees who wished to "pursue [their] claims against Defendant arising out of federal wage and hour laws in the proposed lawsuit." (Doc. 9; Doc. 13). Plaintiffs did not seek to amend the complaint and add the 23 employees, but rather filed signed consent forms for all 23 individuals agreeing to "opt in" to the litigation. (Id.). Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to certify the case as a collective action under the FLSA. (Doc. 20). Judge Vazquez granted the motion with regard to the FLSA claims but found that Plaintiffs had failed to meet the class action certification requirements for the state law claims. (Doc. 25 at 1-10). Having found that 25 (the two Plaintiffs plus the 23 opt-ins) individuals were entitled to relief under the FLSA claim but that only the two Plaintiffs could recover under the state law claims, Judge Vazquez referred the case to this Court to determine how relief should be apportioned. (Id. at 10).
Following the order of reference, the Court noted that there was little evidence in the record to support Plaintiffs' claims with regard to the appropriate amount of damages to award. The evidence consisted of no more than affidavits filed by Plaintiffs and five otheropt-in employees wherein they approximated the dates worked for Dynasty, the wages paid, the amount of overtime worked, and the estimated worth of the unpaid overtime wages. (See Doc. 15; Doc. 18; Doc. 21). The affidavits did not include any pay stubs or other documentary evidence to substantiate their claims. (See, e.g. Doc. 18 at 5, 10, 13, 15, 17). The other 18 opt-in employees did not provid any information or evidence regarding their work dates or hours with Dynasty Insulation. The Court noted that Plaintiffs bore the burden of proving the extent of their damages with "reasonable certainty" and directed them to supplement the record by establishing "through competent evidence, the dates worked by Plaintiffs and the 23 opt-in employees, the regular and overtime hours worked, and the wage paid to each employee for those hours." (Doc. 28 at 3).
Plaintiffs responded to the Court's order with a supplemental brief and declaration wherein they provided photocopies of pay stubs and pay records for the two named Plaintiffs as well as Leonel Carillo, one of the opt-in employees. (Doc. 32; Doc. 33 at 7-18; Doc 33-1 at 2-14, 16-27). The other four employees who had previously supplied affidavits - Irvin Jurado, Jose Sanchez, Ricardo Valenzuela, and Rudolfo Valenzuela - did not provide any new documentation to support their claims. No evidence was introduced to estimate or quantify the value of the claims of the other eighteen opt-in employees. Plaintiffs' counsel admitted that he had lost touch with many of the opt-in class members and had no way of contacting them. (Doc. 32 at 4). Plaintiffs included a proposed distribution of funds wherein they claimed that Francisco Amezguita, Sr., was entitled to $109,895.68 in damages, Francisco Amezguita, Jr., was entitled to $89,256.50, and the five aforementioned opt-in employees were collectively entitled to $33,728.00, for a total of $149,312.25. (Doc. 33 at4-5; Doc. 33-2 at 2; Doc. 32 at 5).1
The Court reviewed Plaintiffs' supplemental brief and declaration in support and found that, while they "provided helpful information[,]" they raised a number of new questions. The Court noted that Plaintiffs had not provided any legal support for their contention that the affidavits alone sufficed to prove the opt-in employees' damages. (Doc. 35 at 4-5). The Court also queried whether awarding liquidated damages under the FLSA, MWA, and PWMWA would amount to an improper double recovery for the named Plaintiffs and whether the liquidated damages should be limited to whichever statute provides the greatest recovery. (Id. at 6). The Court ordered Plaintiffs to submit a second supplemental brief addressing these issues. (Id.).
Plaintiffs responded with their supplemental brief on July 30, 2012. (Doc. 36). Plaintiffs argued that the Court was entitled to rely solely on the opt-in employees' affidavits in calculating their damages and that a hearing was unnecessary. (Id. at 3-5). The supplemental brief did not address the Court's concerns regarding the possibility of an improper windfall were the Court to award liquidated damages under both the FLSA, MWA, and PWMWA. The matter is now before the Court for a recommendation regarding the appropriate award of damages.
As noted, twenty-three former employees of Dynasty Insulation "opted-in" to joinPlaintiffs' complaint for unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA. Pursuant to the FLSA, "no employer shall employ any of his employees . . . for a workweek longer than forty hours unless such employee receives compensation for his employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed." 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). The FLSA provides that employees may recover the value of unpaid overtime wages. Id. at § 206(b). Employees may also recover an additional amount equal to the value of the unpaid wages as liquidated damages. Id.
Of the twenty-three employees who opted in to the litigation, only five employees - Leonel Carillo, Irvin Jurado, Jose Sanchez, Ricardo Valenzuela, and Rudolfo Valenzuela - supplied affidavits wherein they estimated their daily wage and the number of overtime hours worked. Of the five, only Leonel Carillo provided pay stubs and other evidence to substantiate his claim for damages. (Doc. 33-1 at 16-27). The question for the Court is whether the affidavits and pay stubs supplied by the opt-in employees suffice to establish the amount of damages due to them following Judge Vazquez's default judgment.
"When a default judgment is entered on a claim for an indefinite or uncertain amount of damages, facts alleged in the complaint are taken as true, except facts relating to the amount of damages, which must be proven in a supplemental hearing or proceeding." United States v. Craighead, 176 Fed. Appx. 922, 925 (10th Cir.2006) (unpublished) (quoting Am. Red Cross v. Cmty. Blood Ctr. of the Ozarks, 257 F.3d 859, 864 (8th Cir.2001)); Flaks v. Koegel, 504 F.2d 702, 707 (2d Cir.1974) (). It is the Plaintiff's duty to prove damages with "reasonable certainty." Credit Lyonnais Sec.(USA) v. Alcantara, 183 F.3d 151, 152 (2d Cir.1999).
While it is true that plaintiffs bear the burden of proving their damages, the FLSA places the burden of maintaining accurate records of employees' wages and hours on the employer. See 29 U.S.C. § 211(c) (). Absent such documentation, many courts have held that an employee may prove the fact of his employment and his right to damages "by relying on his recollection alone." Yang v. ACBL Corp., 427 F.Supp.2d 327, 335 (S.D.N.Y. 2005); see also Schultz v. All-Fund, Inc., 2007 WL 2333049, at * 3-4 (D. Md. Aug. 13, 2007); Pforr v. Food Lion, Inc., 851 F.2d 106, 109 (4th Cir. 1988) (). An affidavit setting forth the number of hours worked has been held to be sufficient. Daugherty v. S.D. Constructors, Inc., 2012 WL 2873355, at *3 (M.D. Fla. June 13, 2012) (); Rodriguez v. Queens Convenience Deli Corp., 2011 WL 4962397, at *2 (E.D. N.Y. Oct. 19, 2011); ...
To continue reading
Request your trial