United States District Court, D. Connecticut
DECISION ON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AWARDING DAMAGES
Vanessa L. Bryant, United States District Judge
the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment Awarding
Damages. This action was brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et
seq., Connecticut Minimum Wage Law, Conn. Gen. Stat.
§§ 31-58, et seq., the Connecticut wage
payment law, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 31-71, et
seq., and a common law negligence claim. The Court
entered default judgment against both Defendants, Class
Limousine Group, LLC, [Dkt. 46], and Antoine Scott, [Dkt.
51], (the “Defendants”). Plaintiff now moves for
damages against the Defendants in the amount of $4, 893. For
the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby grants in part and
denies in part Plaintiff's motion and awards damages in
the amount of $4, 448.36.
asserts in his affidavit submitted in support of the Motion
for Judgment Awarding Damages that he was employed by
Defendants from December 1, 2014, through January 22, 2015.
[See Dkt. 57 (Pl.'s Aff.), ¶ 15]. From
December 1, 2014, until January 16, 2015, Plaintiff worked
seven days per week for 60 hours per week. [Id.
¶ 16]. On the weeks where Plaintiff worked 60 hour
weeks, he was paid $500. [Id.]. Plaintiff states
that on his last week of work ending January 16 he received
no payment for 35 hours that he worked. [Id. ¶
17]. Plaintiff estimates that he is owed $90 in tips.
[Id. ¶ 20]. On January 16, 2015, Defendants
assigned Plaintiff to pick up a customer at the John F.
Kennedy International Airport (“JFK Airport”),
despite Plaintiff lacking the proper license and despite
Plaintiff specifically asking if he was allowed to do so.
[Id. ¶¶ 23-24]. The customer was an
investigator from the Taxi and Limousine Commission and fined
Plaintiff $1, 500 for not having the required license to pick
up customers at the JFK Airport.
reviewing Plaintiff's affidavit, the Court finds that the
damages owed are “reasonably susceptible of
mathematical computation, ” and as such a hearing on
damages is no longer necessary. Morales v. Cancun
Charlie's Rest., No. 3:07-cv-1836 (CFD), 2010 WL
7865081, at *2 (D. Conn. Nov. 23, 2010) (quoting
Greyhound Exhibitgroup, Inc. v. E.L.U.L. Realty
Corp., 973 F.2d 155, 158 (2d Cir. 1992)). The Court has
reviewed Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on Damages and
finds that Plaintiff's calculations are correct with one
exception. See Hosking v. New World Mortg., Inc.,
570 F. App'x 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2014) (noting a district
court may not “just accept plaintiff's statement of
the damages”). The Court therefore adjusts the award in
damages pursuant to the calculations below.
estimates that he worked for four weeks in 2014 and three
weeks in 2015 and accordingly calculates overtime damages
owed. [Dkt. 54-1 (Pl.'s Mot. J. Awarding Damages), at 4].
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-58(i) provides that the minimum
wage increased from $8.70 per hour in 2014 to $9.15 per hour
in 2015, effective January 1, 2015. Plaintiff calculated
overtime payment owed for the week of December 29, 2014,
through January 4, 2015, using only the minimum wage
effective January 1, 2015. [See Dkt. 54-1, at 4].
This calculation is in error because Plaintiff was not
entitled to the 2015 minimum wage for December 29 through 31.
situations where the employer fails to keep adequate
employment records, the employee need only provide
“sufficient evidence to show the amount and extent of
that work [improperly compensated] as a matter of just and
reasonable inference. Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery
Co., 328 U.S. 680, 686-87 (1946), superseded by
statute on other grounds; Velasquez v. U.S. 1 Farm
Market, Inc., 3:13-cv-00634-GWC, slip op. at 4 (D. Conn.
May 3, 2016). As a plaintiff can satisfy this burden
“through estimates based on his own recollection,
” Kuebel v. Black & Decker, Inc., 643 F.3d
352, 362 (2d Cir. 2011), the Court does not require a precise
accounting of the number of hours worked each day that week.
Because the Court does not have the benefit of the
Plaintiff's pay stubs, the Court apportions the 40 hours
attributable to minimum wage payments equally among all seven
days of the week from December 29, 2014, through January 4,
2015, which calculates the average number of hours worked
each day of that week. [See Dkt. 57, ¶ 16
(Plaintiff attests he worked each of the seven days that
week)]. Doing so reflects that Plaintiff worked an equal
number of hours each day that week and earned a minimum wage
of $8.70 per hour for the three days in December, $9.15 for
the four days in January, and began accruing overtime hours
in 2015 (on the fifth day of the week). Finding these
calculations to be the most reasonable estimation of
Plaintiff's owed wages, the Court concludes that
Plaintiff is owed $132.76 for that week, not $140.50 as
Plaintiff calculated. Therefore, with respect to overtime
damages Plaintiff is owed a total of $709.29 in actual
damages and $1, 418.57 in liquidated damages, for a total of
Court finds that Plaintiffs calculations of minimum wage
owed, tips owed, and negligence damages owed are appropriate.
After amending this one calculation error, the Court finds
that Plaintiff is entitled to $4, 448.36 in damages.
 The Court notes that Plaintiff does
not appear to have worked from January 17, 2015 through
January 22, 2015, as the affidavit explicitly mentions the
week ending ...