Rodriguez v. Almighty Cleaning, Inc.
784 F. Supp. 2d 114
E.D.N.Y2011Background
- Plaintiffs filed suit July 14, 2009 under the FLSA and NYLL against Almighty Cleaning, PMCB Cleaning & Maintenance, Inc., and Phillip Patanjo for unpaid wages.
- Defendants allegedly owned/operated both Almighty Cleaning and PMCB, with Patanjo exercising control over both.
- Plaintiffs allege enterprise coverage (annual gross volume ≥ $500,000) and interstate commerce involvement through cleaning supplies and activities.
- Plaintiffs claim overtime and minimum-wage violations, asserting they regularly worked well over 40 hours per week without proper overtime pay.
- Defendants defaulted after failing to obtain new counsel or respond to court orders; named-plaintiffs sought default judgment and conditional certification.
- The court granted the R&R, entering default judgments for four named Plaintiffs and granting conditional certification for a FLSA collective action; notice and collection of opt-ins were ordered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the defendants are liable under the FLSA/NYLL as an enterprise engaged in commerce. | Rodriguez argues enterprise coverage applies to Almighty Cleaning and PMCB. | Patanjo argues defendants may not be an enterprise. | Yes; court finds enterprise coverage established and defendants are liable. |
| Whether default judgment should be entered against the defendants. | Plaintiffs show willful disregard of court orders and failure to respond. | Defendants may have meritorious defenses (via Answer). | Default judgment warranted against Almighty Cleaning, PMCB, and Patanjo for the named Plaintiffs. |
| Whether damages, including minimum wage, overtime, spread-of-hours, and liquidated damages, are properly calculated and awarded. | Plaintiffs provide detailed affidavits supporting damages; liquidated damages appropriate. | Defendants did not respond; potential defenses exist. | Damages awarded as calculated; liquidated damages awarded; NYLL and FLSA liquidated damages addressed; spread-of-hours damages recognized. |
| Whether conditional certification as a FLSA collective action should be granted. | Plaintiffs show a factual nexus and similar overtime concerns among potential opt-ins. | Defendants oppose, arguing lack of common policy and identical treatment. | Yes; conditional certification granted and notice of pendency approved. |
| Whether to permit a six-year look-back for notice and potential opt-ins. | State-law claims require six-year window; judicial economy supports broader notice. | Three-year FLSA window suffices. | Six-year period applied for notice dissemination; FLSA three-year period for opt-ins within that window. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reich v. S. New England Telecomm. Corp., 121 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 1997) (burden on employer to negate liquidated damages; willfulness standard discussed)
- Enron Oil Corp. v. Diakuhara, 10 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 1993) (two-step default judgment analysis guidance; factors for relief)
- Herman v. RSR Sec. Services Ltd., 172 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1999) (employer definition under FLSA; individual liability of corporate officers)
- Bambu Sales, Inc. v. Ozak Trading, Inc., 58 F.3d 849 (2d Cir. 1995) (classic Second Circuit authority on default judgments and liability)