Gu v. Lemonleaf Thai Restaurant Mineola Corporation
2:18-cv-06614
E.D.N.YJun 13, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Guoping Gu was employed as a deliveryman by Defendants at Lemonleaf Thai Restaurant in Mineola, NY, from June 1, 2014, to October 8, 2018.
- Gu alleges he was not paid minimum wage or overtime, was not compensated for spread of hours, and did not receive proper wage notices or statements.
- The lawsuit was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL), seeking damages for unpaid wages, statutory violations, and reimbursement for expenses.
- Defendants initially appeared but eventually defaulted after their counsel withdrew and new counsel did not appear.
- Plaintiff moved for default judgment, seeking damages, attorney's fees, and costs; Magistrate Judge Shields issued a Report and Recommendation addressing these claims.
- No additional plaintiffs opted into this conditionally certified collective action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unpaid minimum wage & overtime | Not paid required minimum wages and overtime under FLSA/NYLL | No defense (default) | For Plaintiff |
| Spread of hours pay | Did not receive spread of hours pay when eligible under NYLL | No defense (default) | For Plaintiff (in part) |
| Wage notices & statements (WTPA violations) | Never received proper wage notices or pay statements | No defense (default) | For Plaintiff (maximum WTPA damages) |
| Attorney’s fees and costs | Claims fees/costs are reasonable and well-documented | No defense (default) | For Plaintiff |
| Reimbursement of out-of-pocket vehicle costs | Sought compensation for delivery expenses with estimated mileage | No evidence provided | Denied to Plaintiff |
| Pre- and post-judgment interest | Entitled to interest under NYLL rules and federal statute | No defense (default) | For Plaintiff |
Key Cases Cited
- Coley v. Vannguard Urban Improvement Ass’n, Inc., [citation="12-CV-5565", reporter citations not available] (standards for default judgments and FLSA enterprise coverage)
- Carter v. Dutchess Cmty. Coll., 735 F.2d 8 (2d Cir. 1984) (defining "employer" under the FLSA via multifactor test)
- Reich v. S. New England Telecomm. Corp., 121 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 1997) (burden on employer to avoid liquidated damages under FLSA)
- Walling v. Helmerich & Payne, Inc., 323 U.S. 37 (1944) (overtime compensation required even for wages above minimum)
- Carter v. Dutchess Cmty. Coll., 735 F.2d 8 (2d Cir. 1984) (test for employer status under FLSA)
- Credit Lyonnais Sec. (USA) Inc. v. Alcantara, 183 F.3d 151 (2d Cir. 1999) (plaintiff must prove damages to reasonable certainty at default)