Guthrie v. Rainbow Fencing Inc.
| Decision Date | 24 February 2023 |
| Docket Number | 21-CV-5929 (KAM)(RML) |
| Parties | ROBERT GUTHRIE, Plaintiff, v. RAINBOW FENCING INC., AND LAWSON BURGE, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
On October 25, 2021, Plaintiff Robert Guthrie (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Guthrie”) commenced this wage and hours action against Defendants Rainbow Fencing, Inc. and Lawson Burge (“Defendants”) asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C §§ 201, et seq., and the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”). (ECF No. 1, Compl.) Both Defendants were properly served with the summons and complaint. (ECF No 5-6, Summons Executed.) After Defendants failed to answer or otherwise move with respect to the complaint, Plaintiff moved for entry of default pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) as to both defendants on January 28, 2022. (ECF No. 7, Request for Certificate of Default.) On February 2, 2022, the Clerk of the Court noted the defaults of both defendants. (ECF No. 8.) On April 21, 2022, Plaintiff moved for default judgment. (ECF No. 10, Pl. Mot.) On September 30 2022, the Court referred Plaintiff's motion to Magistrate Judge Levy for a report and recommendation.
Before the Court are: (1) Magistrate Judge Levy's Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”), dated December 13, 2022, which recommends that Mr. Guthrie's motion for default judgment be granted except as to his claim for statutory damages under NYLL §§ 195 and 198; and (2) Mr. Guthrie's objections to the R&R. (ECF No. 14, Pl. Obj.) For the reasons stated below, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Levy's R&R, with the addition that Plaintiff's NYLL wage notice and wage statement claims are dismissed without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff lacks Article III standing.
The Court assumes the parties' familiarity with the extensive facts thoroughly recounted in the R&R. (See generally ECF No. 12, R&R.) For present purposes, the Court reiterates only the procedural background and facts relevant to the Plaintiff's objections, as set forth in the R&R and Plaintiff's complaint.
By order dated September 30, 2022, and after Defendants were properly served with the entry of default and notice by Plaintiff, the Court referred Plaintiff's motion for default judgment to Magistrate Judge Levy for a report and recommendation. Plaintiff seeks a default judgment ordering Defendants to (1) pay him overtime wages under the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) and federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”); (2) pay him unpaid minimum wages under NYLL; and 3) pay him statutory damages for notice and wage statement violations under NYLL §§ 195 and 198.
On December 13, 2022, Magistrate Judge Levy issued his report and recommendations (ECF No. 12, R&R) to this Court. On that day, Plaintiff served the Defendants with the R&R and noted service on the docket. (ECF No. 13.) For the reasons set forth in the R&R, he recommends that Plaintiff's motion be granted and that a default judgment be entered against both Defendants Rainbow Fencing, Inc. and Lawson Burge, jointly and severally. Regarding damages, the magistrate judge recommended that Plaintiff be awarded a total of $91,243 as follows: $3,200 in unpaid minimum wages, $42,421.50 in unpaid overtime wages, and $45,621.50 in liquidated damages. (Id. at 15.)
Magistrate Judge Levy found that the Plaintiff had not alleged that he suffered any actual and concrete injury due to Defendants' failure to provide wage notices or wage statements. (Id. at pp. 12-14.) As such, he found that Plaintiff's allegation of technical violations of New York's wage notice and wage statement requirements were insufficient on their own to confer Article III standing as to those claims and that Plaintiff was not entitled to statutory damages. (Id.) On December 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed timely objections to the specific part of the R&R, that denied Plaintiff's request for statutory damages for wage notice and wage statement claims under NYLL. (See generally ECF No. 14, Pl. Obj.)
Plaintiff seeks $10,000 total in statutory damages for Defendants' failure to provide wage notices or wage statements as required by NYLL §§ 195 and 198. (ECF No. 10-1, Pl. Mot. at pp. 12-13.) With respect to Plaintiff's wage notice and wage statement claims, the Complaint alleged, in relevant part, the following facts:
The Plaintiff's declaration in support of his motion for default judgment provided the following facts with respect to his wage notice and wage statement claims:
When a party objects to an R&R, the Court must review de novo those recommendations in the R&R to which the party objects. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997). Where a party does not object to a portion of the R&R, the Court “‘need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.'” Galvez v. Aspen Corp., 967 F.Supp.2d 615, 617 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (quoting Reyes v. Mantello, No. 00-cv-8936, 2003 WL 76997, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2003)). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Objections “must be specific and clearly aimed at particular findings in the magistrate judge's proposal.” Green v. Dep't of Educ. of City of N.Y., No. 18-CV-10817, 2020 WL 5814187, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2020) (quoting McDonaugh v. Astrue, 672 F.Supp.2d 542, 547 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)); Barratt v. Joie, No. 96-CV-0324, 2002 WL 335014, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2002) )). If “the [objecting] party makes only frivolous, conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates [his] original arguments, the Court reviews the report and recommendation only for clear error.” Velez v. DNF Assocs., LLC, No. 19-CV-11138, 2020 WL 6946513, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2020) (quoting Chen v. New Trend Apparel, Inc., 8 F.Supp.3d 406, 416 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)); see also Colliton v. Donnelly, No. 07-CV-1922, 2009 WL 2850497, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2009), aff'd, 399 Fed.Appx. 619 (2d Cir. 2010).
“[E]ven in a de novo review of a party's specific objections,” however, “the court will not consider ‘arguments, case law and/or evidentiary material which could have been, but were not, presented to the magistrate judge in the first instance.'” Brown v. Smith, No. 09-CV-4522, 2012 WL 511581, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2012) (quoting Kennedy v. Adamo, No. 02-CV-1776, 2006 WL 3704784, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2006)) (alterations omitted).
Magistrate Judge Levy recommended denying damages for Plaintiff's wage notice and wage statement claims for lack of Article III standing, quoting the 2021 Supreme Court case, TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021), which held “that a technical violation triggering a statutory damage award only confers Article III standing if the plaintiff demonstrates an actual and concrete injury resulting from that violation.” (ECF No. 12, R&R at pp. 13-14.) Magistrate Judge Levy provided that “courts in this Circuit have ‘found allegations of technical violations of New York Labor Law's wage notice and statement requirements to be insufficient, on their own, to confer Article III standing.'” (Id.) (quoting Beh v. Cmty. Care Companions Inc., No. 19 CV 1417, 2022 WL 5039391, at *7 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2022).
Plaintiff objects only to the R&R's denial of damages for his wage notice and wage statement claims for lack of Article III and requests that this Court modify the Magistrate Judge's recommendations to grant Plaintiff judgment in the maximum sum of $10,000 for the wage notice and wage statement claims. (ECF No. 14, Pl. Obj. at pp. 11-12.) Plaintiff primarily argues that 1) the Court has supplemental jurisdiction, despite any failure to establish lack of Article III standing; and 2) in any case, injury and Article III standing have been established for Plaintiff's wage notice and wage statement claims. (ECF No. 14, Pl. Obj.)
The Court first addresses Plaintiff's argument that this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the New York wage notice and wage statement claims. Plaintiff asserts “[w]here a claim does not independently satisfy the requirements of Article III, it will be deemed to satisfy the requirements of Article III and part of the same case and controversy as another claim that independently satisfies the requires of Article III.” (ECF No. 14, Pl. Obj. at p. 3.) Plaintiff's counsel specifically asserts that “Plaintiff need not show Article III injury as to his wage notice and wage statement claims because these claims are considered part of the same case as the federal overtime claims over which the Court undisputedly has federal subject matter jurisdiction.” (Id. at 8....
To continue reading
Request your trial