Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Villar v. Prana Hospitality, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. New York

April 11, 2017

JOEL VILLAR, PRIMITIVO MARTINEZ, JUAN CARLS FLORES, EDWIN SANCHEZ, RENE PERALTA, EDGAR CAZAREZ, and LISA BROWN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
PRANA HOSPITALITY, INC. and RAJIV SHARMA, Defendants.

          Jeffrey G. Risman, Esq.

          Steven Seltzer, Esq. Paul J. Sagar, Esq.

          Honorable Ronnie Abrams U.S.D.J.

          ORDER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          JAMES C. FRANCIS IV UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE .

         The plaintiffs in this wage-and hour action seek compensatory damages, liquidated damages, and statutory penalties from defendants Prana Hospitality, Inc., and Rajiv Sharma for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (the "FLSA"), and New York Labor Law, N.Y. Lab. Law § 650 et. seq. (the "NYLL").[1] After default judgments were entered against the defendants, the Honorable Ronnie Abrams, U.S.D.J., referred the action to me for an inquest. The defendants did not appear at the hearing, and the following facts are therefore based on allegations and evidence provided by the plaintiff. I recommend awarding the plaintiffs' damages and penalties in the amount of $402, 215.18, and attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $107, 749.00.

         Background

         The plaintiffs are former bartenders, bar backs, porters, and food runners at a restaurant, Pranna, operated by Prana Hospitality and Mr. Sharma. (Complaint, ¶¶ 6, 11, 21, 26, 29, 39, 43, 55; Declaration of Steven Seltzer dated Feb. 3, 2017 ("Seltzer Decl."), ¶ 2; Declaration of Joel Villar dated Dec. 20, 2016 ("Villar Decl."), ¶¶ 4-6; Declaration of Primitivo Martinez dated Dec. 20, 2016 ("Martinez Decl."), ¶¶ 4-7; Declaration of Juan Carlos Flores dated Dec. 20, 2016 ("Flores Decl."), ¶¶ 4-7; Declaration of Edwin Sanchez dated Jan. 31, 2017 ("Sanchez Decl."), ¶¶ 4-7; Declaration of Rene Peralta dated Dec. 20, 2016 ("Peralta Decl."), ¶¶ 4-7; Declaration of Edgar Cazarez dated Dec. 20, 2016 ("Cazarez Decl."), ¶¶ 4-7; Declaration of Lisa Brown dated Dec. 23, 2016 ("Brown Decl."), ¶ 4-5; Declaration of Marlene Melendez dated Jan. 26, 2017 ("Melendez Decl."), ¶¶ 4-6; Declaration of Nicole Yochum dated Jan. 26, 2017 ("Yochum Decl."), ¶¶ 4-6; Declaration of Natalie Desposati dated Jan. 31, 2017 ("Desposati Decl."), ¶¶ 4-7; Declaration of Gerardo Mejia dated Dec. 28, 2017 ("Mejia Decl."), ¶¶ 4-7; Declaration of Omar Atenco dated Dec. 20, 2016 ("Atenco Decl."), ¶¶ 4-7) . Each plaintiff worked at the restaurant for some period between October 2008 and March 2015. (Villar Decl., ¶ 4 (Aug. 2012 to Oct. 2014); Martinez Decl., ¶ 4 (Sept. 2010 to Dec. 2013); Flores Decl., ¶ 4 (Nov. 2008 to March 2015); Sanchez Decl., ¶ 4 (Feb. 2012 to June 2014); Peralta Decl., ¶ 4 (Oct. 2008 to May 2014); Cazarez Decl., ¶ 4 (March 2012 to March 2014); Brown Decl., ¶ 4 (Oct. 2011 to May 2014); Melendez Decl., ¶ 4 (Sept. 2012 to Feb. 2014); Yochum Decl., ¶ 4 (Feb. 2013 to Jan. 2014); Desposati Decl. ¶ 4 (Dec. 3, 2013, to June 29, 2014); Mejia Decl., ¶ 4 (Oct. 2012 to Nov. 2014); Atenco Decl., ¶ 4 (Aug. 2009 to Feb. 2013)) .[2] Each plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated the FLSA and NYLL in some or all of the following ways:

1. failure to pay the proper minimum wage for hours worked up to forty per week,
2. failure to pay the agreed-upon wage for certain hours worked,
3. failure to pay time-and-a-half for hours worked over forty per week,
4. failure to pay a spread-of-hours premium for hours worked over ten per day, and
5. failure to provide wage statements in compliance with the NYLL.

         (Villar Damages Calculation ("Villar Calc"), attached as an exhibit to Villar Decl.; Martinez Damages Calculation ("Martinez Calc"), attached as Exh. to Martinez Decl.; Flores Damages Calculation ("Flores Calc"), attached as Exh. to Flores Decl.; Sanchez Damages Calculation ("Sanchez Calc"), attached as Exh. to Sanchez Decl.; Peralta Damages Calculation ("Peralta Calc"), attached as Exh. to Peralta Decl.; Cazarez Damages Calculation ("Cazarez Calc"), attached as Exh. to Cazarez Decl.; Brown Damages Calculation ("Brown Calc"), attached as Exh. to Brown Decl.; Melendez Damages Calculation ("Melendez Calc"), attached as Exh. to Melendez Decl.; Yochum Damages Calculation ("Yochum Calc"), attached as Exh. to Yochum Decl.; Desposati Damages Calculation ("Desposati Calc"), attached as Exh. to Desposati Decl.; Mejia Damages Calculation ("Mejia Calc"), attached as Exh. to Mejia Decl.; Atenco Damages Calculation ("Atenco Calc"), attached as Exh. to Atenco Decl.).[3] In addition, both the Complaint and each plaintiff individually alleges that the defendants' violations were willful. (Complaint, ¶¶ 115, 121, 132, 140, 148, 152, 164; Villar Decl., ¶ 15; Martinez Decl., ¶ 11; Flores Decl., ¶ 11; Sanchez Decl., ¶ 17; Peralta Decl., ¶ 11; Cazarez Decl., ¶ 15; Brown Decl., ¶ 11; Melendez Decl., ¶ 12; Yochum Decl., ¶ 11; Desposati Decl., ¶ 14; Mejia Decl., ¶ 15; Atenco Decl., ¶ 12).

         Discussion

         DA. Legal Standards

         Where a defendant has defaulted, all of the facts alleged in the complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages, must be accepted as true. See Transatlantic Marine Claims Agency, Inc. v. Ace Shipping Corp., 109 F.3d 105, 108 (2d Cir. 1997); Keystone Global LLC v. Auto Essentials, Inc., 12 Civ. 9077, 2015 WL 224359, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2015) . The court may also rely on factual allegations pertaining to liability contained in affidavits and declarations submitted by the plaintiffs. See, e.g., Tamarin v. Adam Caterers, Inc., 13 F.3d 51, 54 (2d Cir. 1993). Nonetheless, a court "must still satisfy itself that the plaintiff has established a sound legal basis upon which liability may be imposed." Jemine v. Dennis, 901 F.Supp.2d 365, 373 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) . Once liability has been established, the plaintiff must provide evidence establishing the amount of damages with reasonable certainty. Transatlantic Marine Claims Agency, 109 F.3d at 111.

         B. Liability

         1. Prerequisites for Coverage Under FLSA and NYLL

         The complaint alleges that Prana Hospitality engaged in interstate commerce and had "annual gross volume of [sales made or business done] not less than $500, 000." (Complaint, ¶¶ 100-101). It further alleges that Mr. Sharma had control over employment practices at the restaurant. (Complaint, ¶¶ 102-106) . Prana Hospitality is therefore an "enterprise engaged in commerce" under the FLSA, and Mr. Sharma qualifies as an "employer" under both the FLSA and the NYLL. 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(d), 203(r)(1), 203 (s) (1) (A) (i) - (ii); NYLL §§ 198, 651; Herman v. RSR Security Services Ltd., 172 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 1999) ("[T]he overarching concern is whether the alleged employer possessed the power to control the workers in question with an eye to the 'economic reality' presented by the facts of each case." (internal citation omitted)); Sethi v. Narod, 974 F.Supp.2d 162, 188 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) ("District courts in this Circuit 'have interpreted the definition of "employer" under the [NYLL] coextensively with the definition used by the FLSA.'" (quoting Spicer v. Pier Sixty LLC, 269 F.R.D. 321, 335 n.13 (S.D.N.Y. 2010))). As noted, the plaintiffs allege that they worked at the restaurant operated by the defendants. Thus, the prerequisites for coverage under both the FLSA and NYLL are met.

         2. Statute of Limitations

         The statute of limitations is six years for claims under the NYLL and three years for claims under the FLSA if a defendant's acts are willful. 29 U.S.C. § 255(a); NYLL § 663(3); Angamarca v. Pita Grill 7 Inc., No. 11 Civ. 7777, 2012 WL 3578781, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2012) . As noted, the Complaint, filed on October 14, 2014, properly pleads willfulness, and each plaintiff has similarly alleged that the defendants' violations were willful. Therefore, the plaintiffs may recover under the FLSA for violations occurring after October 14, 2011, and under the NYLL for violations occurring after October 14, 2008.

         3. Unpaid Minimum Wage

         Both state and federal law mandate that employees be paid at least a minimum hourly rate.[4] 29 U.S.C. § 206(a) (1); N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 12 ("12 NYCRR"), § 146-1.2. "The federal minimum wage does not preempt the state minimum wage, and a plaintiff may recover under whatever statute provides the highest measure of damages." Wicaksono v. XYZ 48 Corp., No. 10 Civ. 3635, 2011 WL 2022644, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2011) (internal citation omitted), report and recommendation adopted, 2011 WL 2038973 (S.D.N.Y. May 24, 2011). In the period at issue - October 14, 2008, to March 31, 2015 -- the higher of the two minimum wages rose periodically, from $7.15 per hour from October 14, 2008, to July 23, 2009, [5] see id.; see also 29 U.S.C. § 206(a) (1); NYLL § 652(1); to $7.25 per hour from July 24, 2009 to December 30, 2013, see Wicaksono, 2011 WL 2022644, at *3; see also 29 U.S.C. § 206(a) (1); NYLL § 652(1); to $8.00 per hour from December 31, 2013 to December 30, 2014, see 29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(1); NYLL § 652(1); and finally to $8.75 per hour from December 31, 2014, to March 31, 2015, see 29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(1); NYLL § 652(1). Eight of the plaintiffs -- Mr. Sanchez, Mr. Peralta, Mr. Cazarez, Ms. Melendez, Ms. Yochum, Ms. Desposati, Mr. Mejia, and Mr. Atenco -- allege that they were paid less than the required minimum wage. (Sanchez Decl., ¶ 14; Sanchez Calc; Peralta Decl., ¶ 8; Peralta Calc; Cazarez Decl., ¶¶ 9-10; Cazarez Calc; Melendez Decl., ¶ 9; Melendez Calc; Yochum Decl., ¶ 7; Yochum Calc; Desposati Decl., ¶ 11; Desposati Calc; Mejia Decl., ¶¶ 9-10, 12; Mejia Calc; Atenco Decl., ¶ 8; Atenco Calc.).

         4. Unpaid Agreed-Upon Wage

         The FLSA allows recovery for unpaid "straight" time only up to the minimum wage rate. Kernes v. Global Structures, LLC, No. 15 Civ. 659, 2016 WL 880199, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. March 1, 2016). The NYLL provides, on the other hand, for a claim of straight time at a rate higher than the minimum wage if the parties previously agreed to the rate, and courts have awarded straight time rates higher than the minimum wage under a variety of NYLL sections. See, e.g., id. (NYLL § 198 (3)); Armata v. Unique Cleaning Services, LLC, No. 13 CV 3625, 2015 WL 12645527, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2015) (NYLL § 198(3)); Hernandez v. NJK Contractors, Inc., No. 09 CV 4812, 2015 WL 1966355, at *42 (E.D.N.Y. May 1, 2015) (NYLL §§ 191(1), 198(3)); Santillan v. Henao, 822 F.Supp.2d 284, 292 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (NYLL § 198(3)); Wing Kwong Ho v. Target Construction of NY, Corp., No. 08 CV 4750, 2011 WL 1131510, at *14 (E.D.N.Y. March 28, 2011) (NYLL § 191(1)); Epelbaum v. Nefesh Achath B'Yisrael, Inc., 237 A.D.2d 327, 330, 654 N.Y.S.2d 812, 814 (2d Dep't 1997) (NYLL §§ 191, 198); but see Myers v. Hertz Corp., 624 F.3d 537, 545 n.l (2d Cir. 2010) ("New York courts have suggested that plaintiffs may not use Labor Law § 191 to seek unpaid wages to which they claim to be entitled under a statute . . . ."); McGlone v. Contract Callers Inc., 114 F.Supp.3d 172, 173 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (declining to hold that NYLL § 663(1) allows claims for wage rates higher than minimum wage); Gottlieb v. Kenneth D. Laub & Co., 82 N.Y.2d 457, 464, 605 N.Y.S.2d 213, 217 (1993) ("[A]11 of the remaining provisions of Labor Law § 198 strongly suggest that the entire section was intended merely to afford procedural rules ... to apply in actions brought for wage claims created under the substantive provisions of Labor Law article 6.") . Here, Mr. Martinez, Ms. Brown, Ms. Melendez, Ms. Yochum, and Ms. Desposati allege that they were not paid an agreed-upon wage that was higher than the minimum wage. (Martinez Decl., ¶ 8; Martinez Calc; Brown Decl., ¶ 7; Brown Calc; Melendez Decl., ¶ 8; Melendez Calc; Yochum Decl., ¶ 8; Yochum Calc; Desposati Decl., ¶ 10; Desposati Calc.).

         5. Unpaid Overtime

         Both the FLSA and the NYLL provide that a non-exempt employee must be paid one and one-half times their regular rate for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1); 12 N.Y.C.R.R. § 142-2.2. Mr. Villar, Mr. Cazarez, Mr. Mejia, and Mr. Atenco allege that they were not paid in accordance with these provisions. (Villar Decl., ¶ 11; Villar Calc; Cazarez Decl., ¶ 10; Cazarez Calc; Mejia Decl., ¶ 10; Mejia Calc; Atenco Decl., ¶ 8; Atenco Calc.).

         6. Unpaid Spread-of-Hours Premium

         The "spread-of-hours" provision in the New York regulations requires an additional hour's pay at the "basic minimum hourly wage rate" for any day where the employee works in excess of ten hours. 12 NYCRR § 142-2.4. Before January 1, 2011, by its plain language, section 142-2.4(a) required spread-of-hours wages only for employees who were paid at the minimum wage. See Espinosa v. Delgado Travel Agency, Inc., No. 05 Civ. 6917, 2007 WL 656271, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. March 2, 2007) . Effective January 1, 2011, employers are required to pay spread-of-hours wages for "all employees in restaurants and all-year hotels, regardless of a given employee's regular rate of pay." 12 NYCRR § 146-1.6(d). Mr. Flores and Mr. Atenco claim unpaid spread-of-hours premiums for the period before and the period after January 1, 2011; however, neither of those plaintiffs was paid at a rate higher than minimum wage. (Flores Decl., ¶ 8; Flores Calc; Atenco Decl., ¶¶ 7-9; Atenco Calc). Mr. Villar, Mr. Sanchez, Mr. Cazarez, Ms. Brown, Ms. Desposati, and Mr. Mejia claim unpaid spread-of-hours premiums for the period after January 1, 2011. (Villar Decl., ¶ 12; Villar Calc; Sanchez Decl., ¶ 11; Sanchez Calc; Cazarez Decl., ¶ 11, Cazarez Calc; Brown Decl., ¶ 6; Brown Calc; Desposati Decl., ¶ 9; Desposati Calc; Mejia Decl., ¶ 11; Mejia Calc).

         7. Liquidated Damages

         Both the FLSA and the NYLL provide for liquidated damages. An employer who violates overtime provisions of the FLSA is liable for an amount in liquidated damages equal to the amount owed in compensatory damages. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); Smith v. Nagai, No. 10 Civ. 8237, 2012 WL 2421740, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2012) ("A defendant found to have violated the FLSA is required to pay the employee an additional amount in liquidated damages equal to the unpaid overtime."), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Smith v. Saki Restaurant Corp., 2012 WL 2428929 (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2012). The same is true under the NYLL for unpaid wages accrued on or after April 9, 2011.[6] NYLL §§ 198(1-a), 663(1); see Garcia v. Giorgio's Brick Oven & Wine Bar, No. 11 Civ. 4689, 2012 WL 3339220, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2012) ("Effective April 9, 2011, Sections 198(1-a) and 663(1) of the NYLL were amended to provide for liquidated damages equal to one-hundred percent of the amounts underpaid."), report and recommendation adopted, 2012 WL 3893537 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2012). For unpaid wages accrued prior to that date, a successful plaintiff is presumptively entitled to liquidated damages in an amount equal to 25% of unpaid wages. See Inclan, 95 F.Supp.3d at 504-05; see also Gold v. New York Life Insurance Co., 730 F.3d 137, 144 (2d Cir. 2013) ("Because there is no support for retroactivity in either the text or the legislative history, we hold that the 2011 amendment is not retroactive.").

         7. Wage Statements

         The NYLL requires that all wage statements include, among other things, the employee's rate of pay, deductions, allowances, and overtime rate of pay. NYLL § 195(3). Each plaintiff alleges that the defendants failed to provide wage statements. (Villar Decl., ¶ 13; Martinez Decl., ¶ 9; Flores Decl., ¶ 9; Sanchez Decl., ¶ 15; Peralta Decl, ¶ 9; Cazarez Decl., ¶ 13; Brown Decl., ¶ 9; Melendez Decl, ¶ 10; Yochum Decl., ¶ 9; Desposati Decl., ¶ 12; Mejia Decl., ¶ 13; Atenco Decl., ¶ 10.). When the bulk of these violations took place, the NYLL provided for a statutory penalty of "$100 for each week that [the employee] did not receive a wage statement with his wage payment, up to a statutory maximum of $2, 500." Galicia v. 63-68 Diner Corp., No. 13 CV 3689, 2015 WL 1469279, at *8 & n.14 (E.D.N.Y. March 30, 3015). The plaintiffs seek penalties at that rate.

         C. Damages

         1. Mr. Villar

         Mr. Villar worked 46.5 hours per week from August 2012 until October 2014. (Villar Decl., ¶¶ 4, 9). He was paid $7.43 per hour for those hours. (Villar Decl., ¶ 10) . He seeks unpaid overtime wages and spread-of-hours premiums, as well as liquidated damages and statutory penalties.

         a. Unpaid Overtime

         For the period from August 1, 2012, to December 30, 2013 --a span of approximately 74 weeks -- Mr. Villar asserts that he was due weekly compensation in the amount of $360.69 (i.e., minimum wage of $7.25/hour x 40 hours = $290.00; overtime wage of $10.875/hour x 6.5 hours = $70.69). (Villar Calc). He was paid $345.49, leaving $15.20 in unpaid weekly overtime compensation, for a total of $1, 124.80 (i.e., $15.20/week x 74 weeks).

         For the period from December 31, 2013, until October 31, 2014 -- a span of approximately 44 weeks -- Mr. Villar asserts that he was due weekly compensation in the amount of $398.00 (i.e., minimum wage of $8.00/hour x 40 hours = $320.00; overtime wage of $12.00/hour x 6.5 hours = $78.00). (Villar Calc). He was paid $345.49, leaving $52.51 in unpaid weekly overtime compensation, for a total of $2, 310.44 (i.e., $52.51 per week x 44 weeks).

         b. Unpaid Spread-of-Hours Premium

         On one day of each week, Mr. Villar worked a shift of longer than ten hours. (Villar Decl., ¶ 9) . For the 74 weeks between August 1, 2012, and December 30, 2013, he should have been paid an additional $536.50 (i.e., minimum wage of $7.25/hour x 1 hour/week x 74 weeks) . For the 44 weeks between December 31, 2013, and October 31, 2014, he should have been paid an additional $352.00 (i.e., minimum wage of $8.00/hour x 1 hour/week x 44 weeks).

         c. Liquidated Damages and Statutory Penalties

         Mr. Villar is entitled to liquidated damages in the amount of $4, 323.74 (i.e., $1, 124.80 $2, 310.44 $536.50 $352.00). In addition, like all of the plaintiffs, Mr. Villar asserts that he was never provided with a proper wage statement. He is therefore entitled to a penalty of $100.00 for each week he worked, up to a maximum of $2, 500.00. Because he worked for more than 25 weeks, he is entitled to the maximum.

         2. Mr. Martinez

         Mr. Martinez worked for the defendants from September 2010 until December 2013. (Martinez Decl., ¶ 4). He asserts that on approximately 30 days each year, he worked for two hours at an agreed-upon rate of $15.00 per hour, which the defendants failed to pay. (Martinez Decl., ¶ 8). He also seeks liquidated damages and statutory penalties.

         a. Unpaid Agreed-Upon Wage

         During the period from September 1, 2010, to April 8, 2011, Mr. Martinez performed 28 hours of unpaid work for which the agreed-upon wage was $15.00 per hour. (Martinez Calc.). That amounts to $420.00 in unpaid wages (i.e., $15.00/hour for 28 hours) . During the period from April 9, 2011, to December 30, 2013, Mr. Martinez performed 164 hours of unpaid work for which the agreed-upon wage was $15.00 per hour, amounting to $2, 460.00. (Martinez Calc.).

         b. Liquidated Damages and Statutory Penalties

         As noted above, for unpaid wages accrued before April 9, 2011, the measure of liquidated damages under the NYLL is 25%. Here, that amounts to $105.00 (i.e., 25% of $420.00). From April 9, 2011, forward, an employee is entitled to liquidated damages in an amount equal to the amount of unpaid wages -- here, $2, 4 60.00. Because Mr. Martinez worked for the defendants for at least 25 weeks, the statutory penalty for the failure to provide wage statements is $2, 500.00.

         3. Mr. Flores

         Mr. Flores worked for the defendants from November 2008 until March 2015. (Flores Decl., ¶ 4) . He seeks to recover unpaid spread-of-hours premiums, liquidated damages, and statutory penalties.

         a. Unpaid Spread-of-Hours Premium

         On one day of each week during his tenure at Pranna, Mr. Flores worked for 17 hours. (Flores Decl., ¶ 7-8) . He was not provided spread-of-hours pay for any of these days. For the period from November 1, 2008, to July 23, 2009 -- a period of approximately 38 weeks during which the applicable minimum wage was $7.15 per hour -- Mr. Flores is entitled to an additional $271.70. For the period from July 24, 2009, to April 8, 2011 - approximately 89 weeks during which minimum wage was $7.25 per hour -- Mr. Flores is entitled to $645.25. For the period from April 9, 2011, to December 30, 2013 -- a period of approximately 142 weeks[7] during which the minimum wage was $7.25 per hour -- Mr. Flores is entitled to an additional $1, 029.50. For the period from December 31, 2013, to December 30, 2014 -- a period of 52 weeks during which the applicable minimum wage was $8.00 per hour -- Mr. Flores is entitled to an additional $416.00. And for the period from December 31, 2014, to March 31, 2015 -- a period of approximately 13 weeks during which the applicable minimum wage was $8.75 per hour -- Mr. Flores is entitled to an additional $113.75.

         b. Liquidated Damages and Statutory Penalties

         Mr. Flores' liquidated damages for unpaid wages accrued prior to April 9, 2011, are 25% of $916.95 (i.e., $271.70 $645.25), or $229.24. For the remainder the period he worked for the defendants, his liquidated damages amount to $1, 559.25 (i.e., $1, 029.50 $416.00 113.75). Because Mr. Flores worked for the defendants for more than 25 weeks, the statutory penalty for the failure to provide wage statements is $2, 500.00.

         4. Mr. Sanchez

         Mr. Sanchez worked for the defendants from February 2012, until June 2014. (Sanchez Decl., ¶ 4) . For the first year, he worked 44 hours per week for a weekly salary of $338.00. (Sanchez Decl., ¶¶ 8-9). One day during each of those weeks, he worked for 17 hours. (Sanchez Decl., ¶¶ 8, 11). For the remaining approximately 73 weeks he worked at Pranna, he worked 38 hours per week, including one shift per week of 11 hours. (Sanchez Decl., ¶¶ 12-14) . During this period, he was paid $5.00 per hour. (Sanchez Decl., ¶ 14). He seeks recovery of unpaid minimum wages and spread-of-hours premiums, as well as liquidated damages and statutory penalties.

         a. Unpaid ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.