Ventura et al v. Koran Landscape Service Inc. et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
APPEARANCES
For Plaintiffs: Katelyn Marie Schillaci, Esq.
Helen F. Dalton & Associates, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, New York 11415
For Defendants: Saul D. Zabell, Esq.
Ryan M. Eden, Esq.
Zabell & Collotta, P.C.
1 Corporate Drive, Suite 103
Bohemia, New York 11716
SEYBERT, District Judge:
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for a New
Trial, or, alternatively, Remittitur filed by Defendants Koran
Landscape Services, Inc. (“Koran Landscaping”) and Bill Koran
(collectively, “Defendants”). (See ECF No. 100; see also ECF No.
100-1, the “Motion”.) Following a June 2025 trial in which
Defendants were found liable under federal and state labor laws to
--------------------------------X
JUAN VENTURA; JOSE EFRAIM
GRANADOS; CASTO CUADRA; JOSE LIDIO
REYES GRANADOS; CARLOS HUMBERTO
CHAVEZ; HEBER ALFARO; and LUIS
ALFARO DOMINGUEZ, each
individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
-against-
KORAN LANDSCAPE SERVICE INC.;
BILL KORAN; and BRAD WINE,
Defendants.
--------------------------------X
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
19-CV-1478 (JS)(ARL)
FILED
CLERK
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LONG ISLAND OFFICE
2/12/2026 3:59 pm
Case 2:19-cv-01478-JS-ARL Document 105 Filed 02/12/26 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
nine employee Plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”), Defendants allege the
jury erroneously awarded four of the Plaintiffs, Carlos Humberto
Chavez (“Chavez”), Casto Cuadra (“Cuadra”), Jose Lidio Reyes
Granados (“Reyes Granados”), and Jose Efraim Granados (“Efarim
Granados” collectively with Chavez, Cuadra, and Reyes Grandos, the
“Motion Plaintiffs”1) damages and penalties for claims not included
in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. (Motion at 1; see also ECF No. 1.) For
the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part.
BACKGROUND
I. Relevant Factual Background
The Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the
factual background giving rise to this action. For context, the
Court provides the following summary. On March 14, 2019,
Plaintiffs filed the Complaint, generally alleging Defendants
failed to: (1) pay Plaintiffs overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (the “FLSA”) and New York Labor Law; (2) pay
Plaintiffs additional hours of pay at minimum wage for each day
worked more than ten hours under the New York Minimum Wage Act;
and (3) provide Plaintiffs with written notice of their pay rate,
pay day, and wage statements under the New York Labor Law. (Compl.
1 The awards given to the non-Motion Plaintiffs are not at issue
in the Motion.
Case 2:19-cv-01478-JS-ARL Document 105 Filed 02/12/26 Page 2 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
¶¶ 122-41.) The Complaint alleged violations from as early as 2013
through its filing, on March 14, 2019. (See, e.g., Id. ¶ 55.) In
the Complaint, Chavez and Cuadra alleged they ceased employment at
Koran Landscaping in December 2018; Reyes Granados and Efarim
Granados alleged they were still employed by Koran Landscaping as
of the filing of the action.2 (Id. ¶¶ 9-12.) Plaintiffs never
filed a motion to amend the Complaint.
Plaintiffs’ claims were tried before a jury. (ECF No. 74.)
Beginning on June 9, 2025, each of the Motion Plaintiffs testified
he was still working at Koran Landscaping after the Complaint had
been filed. Despite the Complaint’s contrary allegations, Chavez
and Cuadra testified they continued working for Koran Landscaping
until May 2019; on cross-examination, they asserted the
Complaint’s departure timelines were inaccurate. (Tr. 50:19-
52:15; 250:17-251:11.) Reyes Granados testified he was still
employed by Koran Landscaping at the time of trial, and Efarim
Granados said he worked there until 2021. (Tr. 78:11-13; Tr.
218:01-02.) The Motion Plaintiffs all testified that the
landscaping season typically ended in December and began again on
March 15 or 20. (See Tr. 44:06-11 (Cuadra), 79:21-25 (Reyes
Granados), 223:09-13 (Efarim Granados), 242:11-15 (Chavez).) Each
Motion Plaintiff also maintained he did not work with Koran
2 Efraim Granados was identified in the Complaint as “Jose Granados
Dominguez.”
Case 2:19-cv-01478-JS-ARL Document 105 Filed 02/12/26 Page 3 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Landscaping during the winter months. (Tr. 65:08-11 (Cuadra),
79:18-20 (Reyes Granados), 223:06-11 (Efarim Granados), 242:09-10
(Chavez).)
On June 17, 2025, the jury rendered verdicts in favor of
all Plaintiffs, generally finding Defendants failed to provide
Plaintiffs with: (1) appropriate overtime compensation; and (2)
appropriate wage and compensation statements. (See ECF Nos. 90
(the “Efraim Granados Verdict Sheet”), 91 (the “Reyes Granados
Verdict Sheet”), 92 (the “Chavez Verdict Sheet”), and 95 (the
“Cuadra Verdict Sheet,” collectively, the ”Motion Plaintiffs’
Verdict Sheets”).) Each of the Motion Plaintiffs’ Verdict Sheets
included damages for 2019, contrary to the Complaint’s
allegations.3 Moreover, each Motion Plaintiff was awarded $5,000
as a penalty for wage statement violations (the “Wage Statement
Penalties”), on grounds none were provided with wage statements
containing accurate compensation and employment information.
(Id.) The Wage Statement Penalties were calculated at $250 per day
worked, with a $5,000 cap. (Id.)
3 The jury awarded the Motion Plaintiffs the following amounts for
2019: $2,240.00 for Chavez; $4,590.00 for Cuadra; $4,860.00 for
Reyes Granados; and $5,130.00 for Efarim Granados. (Chavez Verdict
Sheet at 2; Cuadra Verdict Sheet at 2; Reyes Granados Verdict Sheet
at 2; Efraim Granados Verdict Sheet at 2.) The Motion Plaintiffs
were also awarded damages for years prior to 2019, which are not
at issue.
Case 2:19-cv-01478-JS-ARL Document 105 Filed 02/12/26 Page 4 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
II. The Motion
On August 14, 2025, Defendants filed the Motion, arguing
the jury erred by awarding damages for 2019 causes of action not
included in the Complaint. (Motion at 1.) Defendants assert the
FLSA does not provide for continuing violations, maintaining each
pay period constitutes a separate FLSA cause of action that must
be separately pleaded. (Id. at 3-4 (citing Abuladze v. Apple
Commuter Inc., No. 22-CV-8684, 2024 WL 1073121, at *10 (S.D.N.Y.
Jan. 23, 2024) (stating “the continuing violation doctrine is
inapplicable to FLSA claims”), report and recommendation adopted,
2024 WL 1073155 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2024)).) Because the Complaint
includes no such allegations about 2019 violations, Defendants
maintain 2019 damages cannot be sustained and, correspondingly,
that each Motion Plaintiff’s Wage Statement Penalties4 should be
either reduced or eliminated. (Id. at 4-7.) To remedy these
issues, Defendants seek a new trial or remittitur. (Id. at 1.)
In opposition, Plaintiffs claim the jury’s findings do
not constitute a “miscarriage of justice” or an excessive award
warranting a new trial or remittitur. (ECF No. 101-1, the
“Opposition,” at 4.) Instead, Motion Plaintiffs frame the jury’s
decision to award 2019 damages as a witness credibility finding
4 The Motion appears to use the phrase “liquidated damages” to
refer to what the Verdict Sheets identify the Wage Statement
Penalties.
Case 2:19-cv-01478-JS-ARL Document 105 Filed 02/12/26 Page 5 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
entitled to heightened deference. (Opposition at 5 (citing ING
Global v. UPS Oasis Supply Corp., 757 F.3d 92, 98 (2d Cir. 2014)
(recognizing “a high degree of deference” owed to “the jury's
evaluation of witness credibility”) (further citation omitted)).)
Finally, Motion Plaintiffs contend that even if minor reductions
were theoretically warranted, the amounts Defendants seek to
eliminate are inconsequential relative to the total verdict and
fall far short of “shocking the judicial conscience,” making the
Motion meritless and warranting denial in its entirety. (Id. at 9-
10.)
DISCUSSION
I. Applicable Law
A. Motions to Grant New Trial and Remittitur, Generally
A district court should grant a motion for a new trial
pursuant to Rule 59 where “it is convinced that the jury has
reached a seriously erroneous result or that the verdict is a
miscarriage of justice.” Maurer v. Patterson, 197 F.R.D. 244, 248
(S.D.N.Y. 2000) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Unlike
the Rule 50 standard for a directed verdict, the Rule 59 standard
for a new trial may be met “even if there is substantial evidence
supporting the jury’s verdict,” and the Court is free to “weigh
the evidence [itself], and need not view it in the light most
favorable” to the non-movant. DLC Mgmt. Corp. v. Town of Hyde
Case 2:19-cv-01478-JS-ARL Document 105 Filed 02/12/26 Page 6 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
Park, 163 F.3d 124, 134 (2d Cir.1998). However, the Second Circuit
has instructed district courts to “bear in mind” they “should only
grant such a motion when the jury’s verdict is ‘egregious.’” Id.
The moving party bears a substantial burden in establishing it is
entitled to a new trial.
Furthermore, where a court identifies an issue with the
jury’s award of damages, it has the “authority to enter a
conditional order of remittitur, compelling a plaintiff to choose
between reduction of an excessive verdict and a new trial.” Kirsch
v. Fleet St., Ltd., 148 F.3d 149, 165 (2d Cir. 1998). In
particular:
The trial judge has “‘discretion to grant
a new trial if the verdict appears to [the
judge] to be against the weight of the
evidence.’ . . . This discretion includes
overturning verdicts for excessiveness and
ordering a new trial without qualification,
or conditioned on the verdict winner’s refusal
to agree to a reduction (remittitur).”
Id. (finding no abuse of discretion where the district court, upon
finding the jury miscalculated plaintiff’s backpay, granted
plaintiff’s motion for a remittitur or new trial) (citations
omitted); see also Stampf v. Long Island R.R. Co., 761 F.3d 192,
204 (2d Cir. 2014) (“In considering motions for a new trial and/or
remittitur, ‘[t]he role of the district court is to determine
whether the jury’s verdict is within the confines set by state
Case 2:19-cv-01478-JS-ARL Document 105 Filed 02/12/26 Page 7 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
law, and to determine, by reference to federal standards developed
under Rule 59, whether a new trial or remittitur should be
ordered.’”) (citations omitted); Morris v. Flaig, 511 F. Supp. 2d
282, 311 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (where punitive damages award was “not
reasonably related to the harm done,” conditionally remitting
damages, and, if remittitur is not accepted by plaintiff, ordering
a new trial).
B. The FLSA & Continuing Violations
“[T]he continuing violation doctrine is inapplicable to
FLSA claims, which ‘involve a series of repeated violations, each
giving rise to a new cause of action, and each beginning a new
limitations period as to that particular event.’” Abuladze, 2024
WL 1073121, at *10 (quoting Acosta v. Yale Club of N.Y. City, No.
94-CV-0888, 1995 WL 600873, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 1995)). “In
FLSA cases involving overtime pay, a new cause of action accrues
[ . . . ] at each regular payday immediately following the workweek
during which services were rendered and for which overtime
compensation is claimed.” Acosta, 1995 WL 600873, at *3.
C. Trying Unpleaded Claims
If a plaintiff wishes to try claims not explicitly made
in his or her complaint, “Rule 15(b) of the Federal Rules allows
amendment of pleadings to conform to the evidence so long as
amendment would promote adjudication of the merits and would not
Case 2:19-cv-01478-JS-ARL Document 105 Filed 02/12/26 Page 8 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
prejudice the opposing party.” Jeffers v. City of N.Y., No. 14-
CV-6173, 2018 WL 904230, at *23 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2018). Courts
may treat unpleaded claims as pleaded claims where the parties
either explicitly or impliedly consent to their inclusion at trial.
Bozdogan v. 23 Ludlam Fuel, Inc., No. 16-CV-1053, 2022 WL 523546,
at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2022). “Consent to try claims may be
implied when an issue not raised in the pleadings is either
addressed in an ongoing way by all parties prior to trial, or is
introduced at trial without objection by the opposing party.”
Christoforou v. Cadman Plaza N., Inc., No. 04-CV-08403, 2009 WL
723003, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2009).
D. Application
Motion Plaintiffs’ testimony as to 2019 damages was
either contradicted by or not included in the Complaint. The
Complaint alleges Chavez and Cuadra left the Koran Landscaping in
2018, in spite of their trial testimony to the contrary. (Compare
Compl. ¶¶ 10, 12, with Tr. 50:19-52:15; 250:17-251:11.) While the
Complaint alleges Reyes Granados and Efarim Granados were still
employed as of its March 14, 2019 filing date, both Motion
Plaintiffs testified the landscaping season did not typically
begin until March 15 or 20, thereby indicating 2019 damages for
Reyes Granados and Efarim Granados cannot be supported. (Compare
Compl. ¶¶ 9, 11, with Tr. 103:14-21, 223:06-13.) As FLSA violations
Case 2:19-cv-01478-JS-ARL Document 105 Filed 02/12/26 Page 9 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
accrue during each respective pay period and do not provide for a
“continuing violation” theory of liability, any potential
violations from 2019 are for separate and, thus, unpleaded causes
of action. Abuladze, 2024 WL 1073121, at *10.
The Motion Plaintiffs’ attempt to characterize the
jury’s 2019 liability verdicts as witness credibility findings is
unpersuasive. Testimony about work completed in 2019 has no
bearing on whether the Motion Plaintiffs may collect damages for
unpleaded claims. The Motion Plaintiffs never moved to amend the
Complaint at any point prior to or following the trial, despite
Rule 15(b)’s permissive structure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b).
The parties never explicitly consented to their inclusion and,
because Motion Plaintiffs have not argued the unpleaded claims
were tried “by consent,” the Court declines to address the
question. Christoforou, 2009 WL 723003, at *5 (discussing
circumstances when an unpleaded claim may be considered tried “by
consent”).
Conversely, although the actual damages for 2019 were
awarded in error, Defendants have failed to establish any basis
for modifying the Wage Statement Penalties. Defendants’ single-
sentence assertions that the Wage Statement Penalty figures must
be reduced or eliminated fail to cite to any case law supporting
such an action; nor do they identify which portions of the penalty
Case 2:19-cv-01478-JS-ARL Document 105 Filed 02/12/26 Page 10 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

11
figures relate to work completed in 2019. (See Motion at 4-7.)
Without more, the Court declines to disrupt the jury’s findings on
Wage Statement Penalties.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’
Motion for a new trial is GRANTED IN PART to the extent that, if
the Motion Plaintiffs do not accept remittitur by way of a
reduction of damages in the following amounts:
(1) $2,240.00 for Chavez;
(2) $4,590.00 for Cuadra;
(3) $4,860.00 for Reyes Granados; and
(4) $5,130.00 for Efarim Granados,
Then a new trial will be scheduled.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Motion Plaintiffs shall have
until March 12, 2026 to file a letter with The Court advising
whether it accepts the above-delineated remittitur. If no timely
response is filed, the Court will deem the remittitur rejected and
the Court will proceed to schedule a new trial; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in all other respects,
Defendants’ Motion is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
Dated: February 12, 2026
Central Islip, New York
Case 2:19-cv-01478-JS-ARL Document 105 Filed 02/12/26 Page 11 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>