Filed: Oct. 02, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 02, 2019
Summary: OPINION NOEL L. HILLMAN , District Judge . Presently before the Court is the renewed motion of Plaintiff, Mark Lurty, for default judgment on his claims against Defendants concerning Defendants' failure to pay him proper overtime wages. Plaintiff alleges violations of the Federal Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), N.J.S.A. 34:11-56 et seq. 1 Previously, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion without prejudice because t
Summary: OPINION NOEL L. HILLMAN , District Judge . Presently before the Court is the renewed motion of Plaintiff, Mark Lurty, for default judgment on his claims against Defendants concerning Defendants' failure to pay him proper overtime wages. Plaintiff alleges violations of the Federal Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), N.J.S.A. 34:11-56 et seq. 1 Previously, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion without prejudice because th..
More
OPINION
NOEL L. HILLMAN, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is the renewed motion of Plaintiff, Mark Lurty, for default judgment on his claims against Defendants concerning Defendants' failure to pay him proper overtime wages. Plaintiff alleges violations of the Federal Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), N.J.S.A. 34:11-56 et seq.1
Previously, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion without prejudice because the only proof as to Plaintiff's damages was an affidavit of counsel, rather than an affidavit of Plaintiff himself. The Court provided Plaintiff with twenty days to file a supplemental affidavit and a letter request to renew his motion (Docket No. 8, 9), and Plaintiff responded accordingly (Docket No. 10).
The Court therefore incorporates the entirety of the prior Opinion (Docket No. 8), which found that because Plaintiff will be prejudiced if default judgment is not granted, Defendants do not have a meritorious defense, and Defendants' failure to appear in this case is the result of their culpable misconduct, judgment should be entered in Plaintiff's favor as to Defendants' liability for their FSLA and NJWHL violation claims.
With regard to damages, the Court has considered Plaintiff's supplemental affidavit. (Docket No. 10-1.) The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to: (1) $3,266.00 in overtime wages based on this regular rate of pay for Defendants' liability under the FSLA and NJWHL; and (2) liquidated damages in the amount of $3,266.00 in addition to his actual damages for Defendants' liability under the FSLA, totaling $6532.00. See 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a25.2
The Court also finds that Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $4,960.00 in attorneys' fees and $692.00 in costs, totaling $5,652.00. See 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); N.J.S.A. 34:11-56.8. Thus, the total judgment Plaintiff is entitled to is $12,184.00.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons expressed above, Plaintiff's renewed motion for default judgment will be granted. An accompanying Order and Judgment will be entered.
