Goncalves Santos et al v. Capital Power and Lighting et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
DOUGLAS GONCALVES SANTOS and
JADERSON GONCALVES DA SILVA,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CAPITAL POWER AND LIGHTING,
LLC, and KEVIN ISABELLE,
Defendants.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-11674-ADB
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
BURROUGHS, D.J.
Plaintiffs Douglas Goncalves Santos and Jaderson Goncalves Da Silva (“Plaintiffs”) have
sued Defendants Capital Power and Lighting, LLC (“Capital Power”) and Kevin Isabelle
(“Isabelle,” collectively, “Defendants”) for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (“FLSA”), Massachusetts Wage Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148 et seq.
(“Wage Act”), and the Massachusetts Fair Minimum Wage Law, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151, § 1
(“FMWL”), [ECF No. 1 (“Complaint” or “Compl.”)]. 	Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs’
amended motion for default judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b), in which
they seek judgment in the amount of $59,651.18. [ECF No. 25]. For the reasons stated below, the
motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Case 1:25-cv-11674-ADB Document 27 Filed 01/16/26 Page 1 of 7

2
I. 	BACKGROUND
A. 	Factual Background
The following facts are drawn from the Complaint. By defaulting, Defendants are “taken
to have conceded the truth of the factual allegations in the complaint as establishing the grounds
for liability.” Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Tropikgadget FZE., 146 F. Supp. 3d 270, 275 (D. Mass.
2015) (quoting In re The Home Restaurants, Inc., 285 F.3d 111, 114 (1st Cir. 2002)).
Defendants employed Plaintiffs as electricians from December 2024 to March 2025. [Compl.
¶¶ 2–3, 20–21]. Defendants’ business involved “goods . . . transported across state lines
specifically for Defendants to use in their business operations” and “Defendants . . . routinely
conducted business across state lines.”1 [Id. ¶ 14]. Plaintiffs earned “approximately $28 per
hour,” [id. ¶ 20], and “routinely worked between 50 to 60 hours per week,” [id. ¶ 21]. Because
Defendants failed to pay the correct overtime premium of $42 per hour, Plaintiffs were not
properly compensated for any hours worked in excess of 40 hours a week, [id. ¶ 23], and, by
March 2025, Defendants had failed to pay Plaintiffs any compensation for at least six weeks of
work, [id. ¶ 22].
B. 	Procedural History
Plaintiffs brought this suit on June 9, 2025, [Compl.], and served both defendants, [ECF
Nos. 4, 9]. Defendants have not answered Plaintiffs’ Complaint or appeared, pleaded, or
defended the action. Plaintiffs requested entry of default as to Isabelle on July 14, 2025, [ECF
No. 5], and as to Capital Power on August 14, 2025, [ECF No. 11]. Default was entered as to
1 Plaintiffs are Massachusetts residents and were employed in Massachusetts, but Capital Power
& Lighting is based in New Hampshire. [Compl. ¶¶ 2–5].
Case 1:25-cv-11674-ADB Document 27 Filed 01/16/26 Page 2 of 7

3
Isabelle on July 15, 2025, [ECF No. 6], and as to Capital Power on August 15, 2025, [ECF No.
12]. Plaintiffs filed a motion for default judgment with accompanying affidavit and attachment
on August 18, 2025. [ECF Nos. 15, 16]. On September 22, 2025, the Court noted that it was
unable to rule on the motion because the amount of damages was not ascertainable from the
Complaint or motion papers, and ordered Plaintiffs to file a renewed motion. [ECF No. 19]. On
November 21, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an amended motion for default judgment, seeking judgment
in the amount of $59,651.18. [ECF No. 25 at 3].
II. 	DISCUSSION
The Complaint asserts five claims: an FLSA claim for failure to pay minimum wage
(Count I); an FLSA claim for failure to pay overtime (Count II); a Wage Act claim for non-
payment of wages (Count III); an FMWL claim for failure to pay overtime wages (Count IV);
and an FMWL claim for failure to pay wages (Count V). [Compl. at 8–10].
A. 	FLSA Claims (Counts I, II)
To prevail on an FLSA claim, Plaintiffs must establish that they were (1) “employed by
the defendants;” (2) “the work involved interstate activity;” and (3) “plaintiffs performed work
for which they were under-compensated.” Manning v. Bos. Med. Ctr. Corp., 725 F.3d 34, 43
(1st Cir. 2013) (internal quotations omitted). Moreover, on a claim for unpaid overtime wages,
Plaintiffs must also “demonstrate that [they] were employed ‘for a workweek longer than forty
hours’ and that any hours worked in excess of forty per week were not compensated ‘at a rate not
less than one and one-half times the regular rate.’” Id. (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1)).
Here, Plaintiffs have established that they were employed by Defendants as electricians,
[Compl. ¶¶ 20–21]; see 29 U.S.C. § 203(g) (“‘Employ’ includes to suffer or permit to work”),
and that the work involved interstate activity, see [Compl. ¶¶ 2–5, 14]. Plaintiffs were
Case 1:25-cv-11674-ADB Document 27 Filed 01/16/26 Page 3 of 7

4
undercompensated in that they did not receive any wages for the last six weeks of their
employment, meaning that they were paid less than the federal minimum wage under 29 U.S.C.
§ 206(a)(1). [Compl. ¶¶ 22, 39]. Similarly, under 29 U.S.C. § 207, Plaintiffs worked between
50 to 60 hours a week and did not receive compensation at a rate of one and one-half times their
regular rate for hours exceeding the forty hours per week. [Compl. ¶¶ 20–23, 40]. Thus,
Plaintiffs are entitled to default judgment on their FLSA claims.
B. 	Wage Act and FMWL Claims (Counts III, IV, V)
To prevail on a claim for unpaid wages under the Massachusetts Wage Act, a plaintiff
must prove “(1) the plaintiff was an employee [of defendant-employer] under the Wage Act; (2)
the compensation constitutes wages pursuant to Act; and (3) the defendant[s] violated the Wage
Act by not paying the wages owed in a timely manner.” Austin v. Ken’s Foods, Inc., 772 F.
Supp. 3d 163, 175 (D. Mass. 2025). Plaintiffs have established that they were employees of
Defendants and that their compensation constitutes wages. See [Compl. ¶¶ 7–8, 20–21]. Under
the Wage Act, Defendants were required to pay Plaintiffs “within six days of the termination of
the pay period during which the wages were earned,” Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148, but they
did not do so, [Compl. ¶¶ 20–23]. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to default judgment on
Count III.
Moreover, under the FMWL, “[a] wage of less than $15.00 per hour, in any
occupation . . . shall conclusively be presumed to be oppressive and unreasonable.” Mass. Gen.
Laws ch. 151, § 1. The statute further states that employers may not employ any of their
employees for more than forty hours per week “unless such employee receives compensation for
his employment in excess of forty hours at a rate not less than one and one half times the regular
rate at which he is employed.” Id. § 1A. Here, Plaintiffs received “unreasonable” wages
Case 1:25-cv-11674-ADB Document 27 Filed 01/16/26 Page 4 of 7

5
because Plaintiffs were not compensated for at least six weeks of work and were not paid at the
“one and one half times” rate for hours worked over the 40 hours per week. [Compl. ¶¶ 20–23].
Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to default judgment on Counts IV and V.
C. 	Damages
An entry of default establishes liability, but “it does not establish the amount of damages
owed to the plaintiff for purposes of a default judgment.” Groden v. Epstein, No. 24-cv-10303,
2024 WL 4519724, at *3 (D. Mass. Oct. 17, 2024). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2), the Court
“may conduct hearings or make referrals . . . to . . . determine the amount of damages,” but it is
not required to do so where the facts alleged, together with affidavits submitted by the moving
party, adequately establish the amount of the default judgment. See In re The Home Rests., 285
F.3d at 114–15 (upholding entry of default judgment without a hearing, where there was “no
uncertainty about the amounts at issue,” the pleadings contained “specific dollar figures,” and the
court requested and received affidavits in support of the default judgment).
Here, Plaintiffs seek default judgment in the amount of $59,651.18, with the following
components: (i) $39,186.00 in damages, (ii) $12,245.00 in attorney’s fees, (iii) $837.43 in costs,
and (iv) $2,789.96 in prejudgment interest.2 [ECF No. 25 at 3]. The request for damages is
supported by declarations from Plaintiffs, [id. at 21–24], attachments showing the number of
hours Plaintiffs worked, [id. at 17–20], and a timesheet detailing the tasks Plaintiffs’ counsel
performed and listing costs incurred, [id. at 11–13].
2 Plaintiffs’ math does not add up: the sum of the individual amounts they seek is $55,058.39,
not $59,651.18. [ECF No. 25 at 3].
Case 1:25-cv-11674-ADB Document 27 Filed 01/16/26 Page 5 of 7

6
The Court finds that the affidavits and supporting materials submitted with Plaintiffs’
motion for default judgment adequately support the (treble) damages sought by Plaintiffs. See
Carroca v. All Star Enters. & Collision Ctr., Inc., No. 12-cv-11202, 2013 WL 3496537, at *4 (D.
Mass. July 10, 2013) (explaining that when plaintiffs seek to recover under both the FLSA and
the Wage Act “the Court awards the greater of the liquidated damages provisions”). The Court
also finds, upon review of the documentation submitted, that Plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s
fees and costs is largely reasonable.3 See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 150 (noting that employee
who prevails in Wage Act action “shall . . . be awarded the costs of the litigation and reasonable
attorneys’ fees”). Finally, the prejudgment interest sought by Plaintiffs, of twelve percent on the
(pre-trebling) amount of lost wages, comports with Massachusetts law.4 Mass. Gen. Laws ch.
3 Plaintiffs’ initial motion for default judgment lacked basic information necessary for the Court
to ascertain the amount of damages, as the Court explained in its order denying that motion.
[ECF No. 19]. The amended motion and accompanying materials sufficiently cure these defects
for the Court to ascertain the amount of damages without a hearing, but they, too, reflect a real
lack of care, containing basic mathematical errors, e.g., [ECF No. 25 at 3 (providing incorrect
total for proposed judgment)], unexplained inconsistencies, e.g., [id. at 19 (referring to Plaintiff
Douglas Goncalves Santos as “Douglas Goncalves Costa”)], and omissions, [id. at 21–24
(referring to exhibits not attached to motion)]. These issues are particularly troubling in the
context of a default-judgment motion, where Plaintiffs’ counsel effectively acts ex parte, and
they have unnecessarily required the Court to expend additional resources. Accordingly, the
Court finds that it is not reasonable to award Plaintiffs attorney’s fees incurred for the 8.3 hours
of work performed after the Court’s order denying the initial motion, and the Court will award
$8,966.50 in attorney’s fees, not $12,245. Counsel for Plaintiffs is admonished to be more
careful in the future.
4 Plaintiffs’ calculation of prejudgment interest is incorrect. Plaintiffs’ claimed pre-trebling
damages are $13,062. See [ECF No. 25 at 18, 20]. Applying to this figure the statutory rate of
twelve percent per annum from the commencement of the action (June 9, 2025) to the date of the
renewed motion for default judgment (November 21, 2025) yields $708.57 in prejudgment
interest, not $2,789.96, which is the amount Plaintiffs request, [id. at 3]. The Court will award
$949.05 in prejudgment interest on Plaintiffs’ pre-trebling damages for the period from the
commencement of the action to the date of this order, when final judgment is entered. See Tobin
v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 553 F.3d 121, 147 (1st Cir. 2009).
Case 1:25-cv-11674-ADB Document 27 Filed 01/16/26 Page 6 of 7

7
231, §§ 6C, 6H; see also George v. Nat’l Water Main Cleaning Co., 77 N.E.3d 858, 864–66
(Mass. 2017). Accordingly, the Court will enter judgment in the amount of $49,948.98,
consisting of (i) $39,186.00 in damages, (ii) $8,966.50 in attorney’s fees, (iii) $837.43 in costs,
and (iv) $949.05 in prejudgment interest.
III. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ amended motion for default judgment, [ECF No.
25], is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 55(b)(2), the Court enters judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor against Defendants in the
amount of $49,948.98, with interest as provided by law.
SO ORDERED.
January 16, 2026 	/s/ Allison D. Burroughs
ALLISON D. BURROUGHS
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-11674-ADB Document 27 Filed 01/16/26 Page 7 of 7