Muratov v. Mama Shnitzel Inc.

• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
• Writing for the Court: TARYN A. MERKL, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
• Docket Number: 22-CV-3785 (HG) (TAM)
• Decision Date: 21 July 2023
• Citation: Muratov v. Mama Shnitzel Inc., 22-CV-3785 (HG) (TAM) (E.D. N.Y. Jul 21, 2023)
• Parties: DANIELLA MURATOV, Plaintiff, v. MAMA SHNITZEL INC.; MAMAS GRILL INC.; and MIKE MIRZACANDOV, also known as MIKE MIRZ, Defendants.

1

DANIELLA MURATOV, Plaintiff, v. MAMA SHNITZEL INC.; MAMAS GRILL INC.; and MIKE MIRZACANDOV, also known as MIKE MIRZ, Defendants.

No. 22-CV-3785 (HG) (TAM)

United States District Court, E.D. New York

July 21, 2023

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TARYN A. MERKL, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Plaintiff Daniella Muratov commenced this action against Defendants Mama Shnitzel Inc., Mamas Grill Inc., and Mike Mirzacandov (a/k/a Mike Mirz) on June 27, 2022. (See Complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges various claims, including violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. and the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”), Art. 6 § 191 et seq. The Clerk of Court certified Defendants' default pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on December 5, 2022, and Plaintiff subsequently moved for default judgment on December 9, 2022. (Clerk's Entry of Default, ECF Nos. 13, 19; Mot. for Default J., ECF No. 20.) For the reasons set forth below this Court recommends that Plaintiff's motion be granted in part.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

As alleged in the complaint, Defendants Mama Shnitzel Inc. (“Mama Shnitzel”) and Mamas Grill Inc. (“Mamas Grill”) (collectively, “Corporate Defendants”) are both New York corporations with their principal place of business at 100-22 67th Avenue Rego Park, New York (the “Rego Park address”). (Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 9, 15.) Defendant Mirzacandov is alleged to be “an owner, officer[,] and/or agent of the Corporate Defendants.” (Id. ¶ 22.) Plaintiff alleges that she worked for Defendants from May 1, 2022, to May 31, 2022, and “was employed as a cashier and general worker at Defendants' restaurant” in Rego Park, New York. (Id. ¶¶ 6-7.)

Plaintiff further alleges that she worked an average of 19.5 hours per week. (Id. ¶ 40.) Specifically, Plaintiff worked 6.5 hours a day, from 11:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m three days a week. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that she was not paid any wages during her period of employment. (Id. ¶ 41.)

As noted above, Plaintiff filed suit on June 27, 2022, alleging that Defendants violated the minimum wage provisions of both the FLSA and NYLL.^[1] (Id. ¶¶ 53-60.) In the complaint, Plaintiff also alleged entitlement to statutory damages for alleged wage notice and statement violations under the NYLL. (Id. ¶¶ 61-67.) Plaintiff served Mama Shnitzel via the New York Secretary of State on July 8, 2022. (See Aff. of Service, ECF No. 9.) After Mama Shnitzel failed to respond to the complaint, Plaintiff requested a certificate of default as to Mama Shnitzel on October 7, 2022, which the Clerk of Court issued on October 11, 2022.^[2] (See Req. for Certificate of Default, ECF No. 12; Clerk's Entry of Default, ECF No. 13.)

Plaintiff subsequently filed additional affidavits of service as to Mamas Grill and Mirzacandov, indicating that both were served on October 26, 2022. (Affs. of Service, ECF Nos. 14, 15.) The first of these affidavits indicates that Mamas Grill was served at the Rego Park address; specifically, that the summons and complaint were left with “George Nun,” who the process server “knew . . . to be Manager.” (Aff. of Service, ECF No. 14.) The second affidavit indicates that Mirzacandov was also served via Mr. Nun at the Rego Park address, and that the summons and complaint were mailed to Mirzacandov at the same address. (Aff. of Service, ECF No. 15.) After neither Mamas Grill nor Mirzacandov responded to the complaint, Plaintiff requested a certificate of default as to these Defendants on November 18, 2022. (Req. for Certificate of Default, ECF No. 17.) The Clerk of Court issued the requested certificate of default on December 5, 2022. (Clerk's Entry of Default, ECF No. 19.)

Plaintiff then filed the present motion for default judgment and accompanying documents on December 8, 2022. (See Mot. for Default J., ECF No. 20; Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Default J. (“Supp. Mem.”), ECF No. 21; Decl. of Jason Mizrahi, ECF No. 22.) Thereafter, the Honorable Hector Gonzalez referred the motion to the undersigned magistrate judge for a report and recommendation. (Mar. 7, 2023 ECF Referral Order.)

On March 21, 2023, the Court scheduled a telephonic motion hearing on Plaintiff's motion for default judgment and directed the Clerk of Court to mail notices of the hearing to two addresses associated with Defendants, along with a copy of the docket sheet. (Mar. 21, 2023 ECF Scheduling Order; Notice to Defendants, ECF No. 25.) The hearing took place on April 19, 2023, but Defendants failed to appear. (See Apr. 19, 2023 ECF Minute Entry and Order.) During the hearing, Plaintiff's counsel informed the Court that Plaintiff did not object to withdrawing her claims for wage notice and statement violations, for purposes of default judgment. (See id.) Plaintiff's counsel also represented that he had contacted Defendants no less than seven times regarding this action, but that these conversations did not lead to any resolution. (See id.) In light of Defendants' failure to appear at the motion hearing notwithstanding the Court's Notice to Defendants, the Court took Plaintiff's motion under advisement. (See id.)

The Court subsequently issued an order on June 23, 2023, directing Plaintiff to file proof of mailing of the default motion papers to Mirzacandov at his last known residence. (See June 23, 2023 ECF Order to Show Cause.) Plaintiff filed an affidavit on June 30, 2023, indicating that the default motion papers had been mailed to Mirzacandov at two different addresses. (See Aff. of Service, ECF No. 27.) On July 13, 2023, the Court directed Plaintiff to file a letter addressing the adequacy of such mailing; the Court further directed Plaintiff to address the adequacy of service of the complaint as to Mamas Grill. (See July 13, 2023 ECF Order.) Plaintiff filed a letter on July 17, 2023, addressing both of these issues, and, on July 18, 2023, filed an additional affidavit indicating that the default motion papers were mailed to each of the Defendants. (See Status Report, ECF No. 28; Aff. of Service, ECF No. 29.)

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standards for Default Judgment

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 provides a “two-step process” for obtaining a default judgment. Priestley v. Headminder, Inc., 647 F.3d 497, 504 (2d Cir. 2011). The plaintiff must first obtain an entry of default when a defendant “has failed to plead or otherwise defend” in an action. Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a). Second, after the certificate of default is entered, and on the plaintiff's application, the district court may enter a default judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b); see also E.D.N.Y. Local Civ. R. 55.2(b). A “plaintiff is not entitled to a default judgment as a matter of right simply because a party is in default.” Finkel v. Universal Elec. Corp., 970 F.Supp.2d 108, 118 (E.D.N.Y. 2013). Rather, the decision to grant a motion for default judgment is “left to the sound discretion of [the] district court because it is in the best position to assess the individual circumstances of a given case and to evaluate the credibility and good faith of the parties.”^[3] Enron Oil Corp. v. Diakuhara, 10 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1993).

The district court must also determine whether the plaintiff's “allegations establish [the defendant's] liability as a matter of law.” Finkel v. Romanowicz, 577 F.3d 79, 84 (2d Cir. 2009). In making this determination, the “court is required to accept all of the . . . factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in [the plaintiff's] favor.” Id. It is “the plaintiff's burden to demonstrate that those uncontroverted allegations, without more, establish the defendant's liability on each asserted cause of action.” Gunawan v. Sake Sushi Rest., 897 F.Supp.2d 76, 83 (E.D.N.Y. 2012).

Moreover, while a default constitutes an admission of liability as to well-pleaded allegations, a default is “not considered an admission of damages.” Greyhound Exhibitgroup, Inc. v. E.L.U.L. Realty Corp., 973 F.2d 155, 158 (2d Cir. 1992). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2), courts have discretion to decide whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary or whether the amount of damages can be determined based on detailed affidavits or documentary evidence. Action S.A. v. Marc Rich & Co., Inc., 951 F.2d 504, 508 (2d Cir. 1991). The “plaintiff bears the burden of presenting proof of damages, which may take the form of documentary evidence or detailed affidavits.” Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Benitez, No. 18-CV-6476 (ARR) (PK), 2020 WL 5519200, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 5517240 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2020); see also Tamarin v. Adam Caterers, Inc., 13 F.3d 51, 53-54 (2d Cir. 1993) (explaining that courts can assess damages based on “‘detailed affidavits and documentary evidence'” (quoting Fustok v. ContiCommodity Servs., Inc., 873 F.2d 38, 40 (2d Cir. 1989)). However, in the default posture, the moving party is “entitled to all reasonable inferences from the evidence offered.” Au Bon Pain Corp. v. Artect, Inc., 653 F.2d 61, 65 (2d Cir. 1981).

Specific to FLSA cases, “in the absence of rebuttal by defendants, plaintiffs' recollection and estimates of hours worked are presumed to be correct.” Ting Yao Lin v. Hayashi Ya II, Inc., No. 08-CV-6071 (SAS) (AJP), 2009 WL 289653, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2009), report and recommendation adopted, 2009 WL 513371 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2009); see also Chao v. Vidtape, Inc., 196 F.Supp.2d 281, 293 (E.D.N.Y. 2002); Rodriguez v. Almighty Cleaning, Inc., 784 F.Supp.2d 114, 126 (E.D.N.Y. 2011).

In this case, Plaintiff seeks a combination of compensatory damages liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorney's fees, and costs associated with this action. (See Compl., ECF No. 1, at 11-12; Supp. Mem.,...