Filed: Sep. 15, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 15, 2015
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT RAYMOND J. DEARIE , District Judge . There being no dispute as to plaintiffs calculation of damages in accordance with the jury verdict form, ECF No. 64, plaintiff is entitled to damages in the amount of $4,752.50, comprising (1) $1,900 in unpaid minimum wages, as determined by the jury, (2) $476.25 in unpaid overtime, as determined by the jury, and (3) $2,376.25 in liquidated damages, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b), b
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT RAYMOND J. DEARIE , District Judge . There being no dispute as to plaintiffs calculation of damages in accordance with the jury verdict form, ECF No. 64, plaintiff is entitled to damages in the amount of $4,752.50, comprising (1) $1,900 in unpaid minimum wages, as determined by the jury, (2) $476.25 in unpaid overtime, as determined by the jury, and (3) $2,376.25 in liquidated damages, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b), be..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
RAYMOND J. DEARIE, District Judge.
There being no dispute as to plaintiffs calculation of damages in accordance with the jury verdict form, ECF No. 64, plaintiff is entitled to damages in the amount of $4,752.50, comprising (1) $1,900 in unpaid minimum wages, as determined by the jury, (2) $476.25 in unpaid overtime, as determined by the jury, and (3) $2,376.25 in liquidated damages, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), because the jury found that defendants failed to prove that they acted in good faith.
Additionally, there being no objection to the well-reasoned report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge James Orenstein, dated July 23, 2015, and because this Court agrees with it, the report and recommendation is adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff is entitled to (I) $10,980 in attorneys' fees, and (2) $2,608.10 in costs. Furthermore, the Court joins in Magistrate Judge Orenstein's admonishment of the inadequate record-keeping practices employed by plaintiffs counsel in this case-particularly counsel's initial failure to properly attribute hours billed by his associates-and cautions that future violations are unlikely to receive a "charitable interpretation."
