412 F.Supp.3d 167
E.D.N.Y2019Background
- Plaintiff Bautista Cabrera sued several defendants (Santiago Canela, Estrella Latina Corp., Estrella Latina Del Caribe Inc., Jose M. Ramos, and John Does) under the FLSA and related wage laws; Ramos answered, others defaulted.
- Magistrate Judge Levy issued an R&R recommending default judgment for Canela and Estrella Latina Corp., but not for Estrella Latina Del Caribe.
- No party objected to the R&R; the district court reviewed it for clear error and adopted it with two clarifications.
- The court clarified that Ramos (who answered) is not subject to the default-judgment motion and made no ruling on claims against him.
- The court addressed whether the complaint sufficiently alleged the FLSA’s interstate-commerce enterprise element, concluding that reasonable inferences that restaurant supplies moved in interstate commerce suffice.
- The court awarded Plaintiff $66,991.64 (breakdown included unpaid wages, overtime, retained gratuities, spread-of-hours, liquidated damages, and statutory wage-statement penalties), pre- and post-judgment interest, and denied attorney’s fees and costs without prejudice to refile within 30 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether default judgment is appropriate against certain defendants | Default judgment appropriate as defendants defaulted and Plaintiff proved damages | Defaulting defendants offered no response | Court granted default judgment as to Santiago Canela and Estrella Latina Corp.; denied as to Estrella Latina Del Caribe |
| Whether Jose M. Ramos is subject to default judgment | N/A (Plaintiff sought relief broadly) | Ramos answered, so not in default | Court clarified Ramos not subject to the default-judgment motion |
| Whether complaint sufficiently pleads FLSA enterprise interstate-commerce nexus | Allegations that defendant operated a restaurant with >$500,000 sales and employees handling food/materials support inference of interstate commerce | Some district precedent requires specific non-conclusory facts about interstate sources | Court held reasonable inferences from restaurant operations and sales suffice to plead interstate nexus for §203(s) purposes |
| Whether attorney’s fees and costs should be awarded now | Plaintiff sought fees and costs | Defendants defaulted but factual/fee submissions incomplete | Court denied fee application without prejudice and granted 30 days to refile |
Key Cases Cited
- Archie v. Grand Cent. P’ship, Inc., 997 F. Supp. 504 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (courts infer interstate nexus where employees handle goods that moved in interstate commerce)
- Gunawan v. Sake Sushi Rest., 897 F. Supp. 2d 76 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (requires non‑conclusory factual allegations to plead interstate commerce)
- Fermin v. Las Delicias Peruanas Rest., Inc., 93 F. Supp. 3d 19 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (reasonably inferring restaurant supplies originate out-of-state supports interstate nexus)
- Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015) (FLSA’s remedial purpose to protect workers from unscrupulous employers)