Ventura v. Putnam Gardens Parking Corp.

• Decision Date: 20 March 2023
• Docket Number: 20-CV-119 (JGK) (VF)
• Parties: JOEL VENTURA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PUTNAM GARDENS PARKING CORP. and JOHN GERASOVLIS, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

1

JOEL VENTURA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PUTNAM GARDENS PARKING CORP. and JOHN GERASOVLIS, Defendants.

No. 20-CV-119 (JGK) (VF)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

March 20, 2023

TO THE HONORABLE JOHN G. KOELTL, United States District Judge.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

VALERIE FIGUEREDO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Joel Ventura brought this action on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against Defendants Putnam Gardens Parking Corporation (“Putnam Gardens”) and John Gerasovlis to recover unpaid wages, overtime wages, and other damages arising from Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”), and New York state labor regulations.^[1] After entry of a default judgement against Putnam Gardens, the Honorable John G. Koeltl referred this action for a Report and Recommendation on damages. Putnam Gardens did not file an opposition to Plaintiff's motion for a default judgment, nor did Putnam Gardens appear at any point in the damages inquest proceeding. After review of the submissions, I respectfully recommend that Plaintiff be awarded damages as set forth in detail below.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND^[2]

Plaintiff Joel Ventura was employed by Putnam Gardens as a garage attendant from approximately April 2008 until around April 16, 2019. See Compl. ¶¶ 1, 4-5, 17, 30 ECF No. 1. Defendant Putnam Gardens, a parking garage, is a New York State corporation located at 3815 Putnam Avenue in Bronx, New York. Id. ¶¶ 2, 20, 22. Defendant John Gerasovlis is the owner of Putnam Gardens. Id. ¶¶ 3, 21, 23. Putnam Gardens is a business engaged in interstate commerce with gross sales exceeding $500,000 per year. Id. ¶¶ 28-29. Throughout the relevant period, Defendants had the power to hire and fire Ventura, controlled the terms and conditions of his employment, and determined his rate and method of compensation. Id. ¶¶ 21, 24-26.

Throughout his employment, Ventura worked six days a week, starting at approximately 12 p.m. and ending at around 12 a.m. or 1 a.m for an hourly rate that varied between $8.00, $9.00, and $10.00 per hour. Id. ¶¶ 34-40; see also Declaration of Joel Ventura (“Ventura Decl.”) ¶ 6, ECF No. 44. Ventura submitted a sworn declaration in connection with his motion for a default judgment. In his sworn declaration, Ventura attests that he was paid a flat rate of $98 per day, “from 2008 until 2017.” Ventura Decl. ¶ 4. “From 2017 until 2019,” Ventura attests that he was paid a flat rate of $700 per week. Id. ¶ 5. In the complaint, Ventura alleges that he was not permitted to retain any tips received from customers. Compl. ¶ 46.

During his shift, Ventura was not provided any rest or meal breaks. Compl. ¶ 47; Ventura Decl. ¶ 8. Ventura attests that he was “regularly” required to work past the scheduled end of his shift because the employee relieving him would arrive late, and he was not paid “additional wages” for working past the scheduled end time of his shift. Ventura Decl. ¶¶ 9, 11-13; Compl. ¶¶ 43-45. Defendants never provided any written notification of Ventura's pay rate or regular pay day, and did not provide Ventura with accurate wage statements. Ventura Decl. ¶¶ 14-15; see also Compl. ¶¶ 50-51, 57, 61-62. Additionally, Ventura was paid in cash, and he did not receive any pay stubs with his wages. Compl. ¶¶ 37, 56; Ventura Decl. ¶ 15.

Ventura filed his complaint on January 8, 2020. See ECF No. 1. He seeks unpaid minimum wages under the NYLL, unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA and NYLL, spread-of-hours pay under the NYLL, statutory damages under the NYLL, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. See Compl. ¶¶ 12, 63, 67-91, Prayer for Relief; Declaration of Michael K. Chong (“Chong Decl.”) ¶¶ 2, 11-24, ECF No. 43; Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law ¶ 22, ECF No. 42.

Defendant Putnam Gardens was served on May 1, 2020. See Aff of Service, filed May 4, 2020, ECF No. 17. Putnam Gardens failed to answer the complaint, and the Clerk of Court issued a certificate of default on September 25, 2020. See Cert. of Default, ECF No. 25. Ventura attempted to serve Gerasovlis with the complaint but was unsuccessful. See Chong Decl. ¶¶ 7-9. Having failed to serve Gerasovlis, on July 30, 2020, the Court dismissed the complaint as against him without prejudice. See id. ¶ 10; Order, ECF No. 19.

On September 30, 2020, Ventura filed a motion for default judgment against Putnam Gardens. See Mot. for Default Judgment, ECF Nos. 26-28. The motion was served on Putnam Gardens the same day. See Decl. of Service ¶ 4, ECF No. 32. The Honorable John G. Koeltl issued an order granting the motion for default on October 29, 2020. See Order, ECF No. 33. The matter was subsequently referred to the undersigned for an inquest on damages following entry of default judgment. See Order of Reference, ECF No. 34.^[3] To date, Putnam Gardens has not responded to Plaintiff's inquest submissions or otherwise appeared in this action. The following recommendations are based on the facts asserted in the Complaint, as well as the evidence presented in Plaintiff's declaration and moving papers submitted in support of the motion for default judgment.

DISCUSSION

In light of Putnam Gardens' default, the Court accepts as true the well-pleaded allegations in the Complaint, with the exception of those allegations relating to damages. See e.g., Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of Am. v. Royal Food Distribs. LLC, 665 F.Supp.2d 434, 436 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (“When the Court enters a default judgment, as regards liability it must accept as true all of the factual allegations of the complaint, but the amount of damages are not deemed true.”) (internal citations, alterations, and quotation marks omitted). As to damages, a district court must “conduct an inquiry in order to ascertain the amount of damages with reasonable certainty.” Credit Lyonnais Sec. (USA), Inc. v. Alcantara, 183 F.3d 151, 155 (2d Cir. 1999). This inquiry requires the district court to: (1) “determin[e] the proper rule for calculating damages on . . . a claim,” and (2) “assess[ ] plaintiff's evidence supporting the damages to be determined under this rule.” Id.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) “allows but does not require” the district court to conduct a hearing on the damages amount. Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers Loc. 2, Albany, N.Y. Pension Fund v. Moulton Masonry & Const., LLC, 779 F.3d 182, 189 (2d Cir. 2015) (“[T]he court may conduct such hearings or order such references as it deems necessary and proper.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Cement & Concrete Workers Dist. Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity Fund, Educ. & Training Fund & Other Funds v. Metro Found. Contractors, Inc., 699 F.3d 230, 234 (2d Cir. 2012). Ventura's submissions have not been contested and the submissions provide all the information needed to determine Ventura's damages. As such, a hearing on the damages inquest is not necessary.

A. Defendant's Liability under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law

1. Statute of Limitations under the FLSA and NYLL

Ventura asserts a cause of action under the FLSA and NYLL for unpaid overtime wages (Compl. ¶¶ 67-70, 76-79) and a claim under the NYLL only for violation of the state's minimum wage requirement (Compl. ¶¶ 71-75). Claims brought under the FLSA must be raised within two years of a non-willful violation or within three years of a willful violation. See Pineda v. Masonry Const., Inc., 831 F.Supp.2d 666, 674 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 255(a)). Willfulness under the FLSA is found where an employer “knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter of whether [the employer's] conduct was prohibited by the statute.” McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128, 133 (1988). “[A] defendant's default, in itself, may suffice to support a finding of willfulness.” Santillan v. Henao, 822 F.Supp.2d 284, 297 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (citations omitted).

Claims brought pursuant to the NYLL must be raised within six years. See Pineda, 831 F.Supp.2d at 674 (citing N.Y. Lab. Law § 663(1), (3)). Although a defendant may be simultaneously liable under both the FLSA and NYLL, a plaintiff may not recover damages under both the FLSA and NYLL for the same injury. See Hernandez v. Jrpac Inc., No. 14-CV-4176 (PAE), 2016 WL 3248493, at *31 (S.D.N.Y. June 9, 2016). Where both the FLSA and NYLL apply to a plaintiff's claims, courts apply the statute that provides the greatest measure of damages. See Elisama v. Ghzali Gourmet Deli Inc., No. 14-CV-8333 (PGG) (DF), 2016 WL 11523365, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2016) (applying NYLL's six-year statute of limitations because it provided the greatest measure of relief), report and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 4908106 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2018); Gamero v. Koodo Sushi Corp., 272 F.Supp.3d 481, 498 n.7, 505, 515-16 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (same), aff'd, 752 Fed.Appx. 33 (2d Cir. 2018).

The limitations period under the NYLL is six years, regardless of a finding of willfulness. See N.Y. Lab. Law § 663(3). Ventura commenced his employment with Putnam Gardens in 2008, Compl. ¶ 17, more than six years before he filed his complaint on January 8, 2020. See ECF No. 1. Given the length of Ventura's employment, the limitations period under the NYLL will provide him the greatest recovery. As such, Ventura is entitled to damages under the NYLL dating back six years from the date he commenced this action-that is, beginning on January 8, 2014.

2. Employer-Employment Relationship under the FLSA and NYLL

To establish a claim for wages under the FLSA, a plaintiff must show that: “(1) the defendant is an enterprise participating...