Lucas Ramirez v. Cookson ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ERICK MOISES LUCAS RAMIREZ, et al., 11 Case No. 1:22-cv-01623-SKO Plaintiffs, 12 ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS TO v. FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING RE 13 MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 14 MICHAEL COOKSON CONSTRUCTION, 21 DAY DEADLINE INC. and MICHAEL SHERMAN COOKSON, 15 Defendants. 16 _________________________________ ____ / 17 18 Pending before the undersigned is Plaintiffs Erick Moises Lucas Ramirez, Isidro Jeronimo 19 Gomez, and Diego Matzar Mendez’s motion for default judgment against Defendants Michael 20 Cookson Construction and Michael Sherman Cookson.1 (Doc. 12). No opposition to the motion 21 has been filed. (See Docket.) 22 Plaintiffs allege that during their employment Defendants violated various federal and state 23 labor laws, including failure to pay minimum wage and overtime, failure to pay waiting time 24 penalties, failure to provide rest breaks, and failure to provide complete wage statements. (Doc. 1 25 ¶¶ 24–180.) Plaintiffs request entry of judgment in their favor on these claims in the amounts of 26 $108,992.20 to Plaintiff Ramirez; $54,800.00 to Plaintiff Gomez; and $54,800.00 to Plaintiff 27 28 1 The motion for default judgment is referred to the undersigned by E.D. Cal. Local Rule 302(c)(19) for the entry of 1 Mendez. (Doc. 12 at 3.) 2 In support of their motion for default judgment, Plaintiffs attach declarations and 3 spreadsheets, broken down by workweek, listing: average hours worked per week; hours worked in 4 excess of 40 hours per week; hourly wage; minimum wage per hour; unpaid minimum wage; unpaid 5 overtime wage; weekly wage; wage paid; and [Fair Labor Standards Act] liquidated damages. (See 6 Doc. 12 at 9–30.) The undersigned has reviewed the declarations and the spreadsheets attached 7 thereto and finds that further explanation is warranted, as set forth below. 8 Plaintiffs allege that they were not paid the minimum wage required under the Fair Labor 9 Standards Act and California law. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 16, 45, 91, 137.) “Employers must pay employees 10 the federal minimum wage, or the state minimum wage if it exceeds the federal minimum wage.” 11 Tenorio v. Gallardo, No. 1:16-cv-00283-DAD-JLT, 2019 WL 338220, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 12 2019) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 218(a) (“No provision of this chapter or of any order thereunder shall 13 excuse noncompliance with any Federal or State law or municipal ordinance establishing a 14 minimum wage higher than the minimum wage established under this chapter...”) and Cal. Lab. 15 Code § 1182.12 (setting state minimum wage)). 16 Plaintiffs’ spreadsheets list a fixed minimum wage of $14.00 per hour for the time period 17 from 2020 to 2022. (See id.) However, the minimum wage in California varies per year and depends 18 on the number of employees the employer employs. See Cal. Lab. Code § 1182.12. Here, it is 19 unclear why (1) a minimum wage of $14.00 per hour should apply to these defendants, and (2) it 20 be fixed for the three years at issue. 21 It also appears Plaintiffs calculated their damages using not the state-mandated hourly 22 minimum wage, but their regular hourly wage rate instead, which is substantially higher. (See Doc. 23 12 at 15, 20, 25 (using hourly rates of $20, $25, and $25, respectively).) Plaintiffs have not provided 24 any authority to support this as an appropriate calculation for unpaid minimum wage damages under 25 the FLSA and California law. In the absence of such substantiation, the undersigned cannot 26 recommend awarding the full amount sought for these claims. 27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty-one (21) days of entry of this 28 order, Plaintiffs SHALL file supplemental briefing, together with supplemental declarations and 1 spreadsheets, if appropriate, addressing the issues identified herein. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 4 Dated: June 22, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28