Cordova v. Envi World LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------x
LORENA ELIZABETH BARROS CORDOVA, 	:
:
:
Plaintiff, 	: 	SUMMARY ORDER
: 	23-cv-3630 (DLI)(MMH)
-against- 	:
:
ENVI WORLD LLC, 	:
:
Defendant. 	:
----------------------------------------------------------------x
DORA L. IRIZARRY, United States District Judge:
On October 16, 2024, Lorena Elizabeth Barros Cordova (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion for
default judgment against Envi World LLC (“Defendant”). See, Default J. (“Motion”), Dkt. Entry
Nos. 41-43. The Court referred the Motion to the Honorable Marcia M. Henry, U.S. Magistrate
Judge of this Court, for a report and recommendation (“R&R”). 	See, Electronic Order dated
October 17, 2024. Magistrate Judge Henry issued an R&R on September 8, 2025. See, R&R, Dkt.
Entry No. 48. To date, no objections have been made to the R&R. For the following reasons, the
R&R is adopted in large part and modified in part.
BACKGROUND1
Defendant employed Plaintiff as a cleaner and packer from October 2021 until January
2023. See, Compl. ¶ 19, Dkt. Entry No. 1. During her employment, Plaintiff regularly worked
approximately fifty-five (55) hours or more each week. 	Id. ¶ 22. 	Following her termination,
Plaintiff brought overtime violation claims against Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and 207(a) et seq., and the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”),
12 N.Y.C.R.R. 137-1.3 et seq. 	Id. ¶¶ 31–41. 	Additionally, Plaintiff brought a minimum wage
1 The Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the facts and circumstances of this case, which are detailed in the
R&R. See, R&R at 2-4.
Case 1:23-cv-03630-DLI-MMH Document 50 Filed 11/20/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
violation claim against Defendant pursuant to the FLSA, and wage statement and recordkeeping
claims (collectively, “wage statement and notice”) pursuant to NYLL, §§ 195(3) and 195(1) et seq.
Id. ¶¶ 42–55. In sum, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to: (1) pay her federal minimum wage;
(2) pay her overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week; (3) provide
wage statements; and (4) provide written notice of her rate of pay. Id. In her well reasoned R&R,
the magistrate judge recommended that the Court grant Plaintiff’s motion for unpaid minimum
wages and overtime and deny Plaintiff’s wage statement and notice claims for lack of standing.
See generally, R&R.
DISCUSSION
When there is no objection “to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, [it] is reviewed, at
most, for ‘clear error.’” Barrera v. F & A Rest. Corp., 2021 WL 2138875, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. May
25, 2021) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee’s Notes (1983) (“When no timely
objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the
record in order to accept the recommendation.”)). 	After its review, the district court then may
“accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the
matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
Upon due consideration and review of the 	R&R for clear error of law, the magistrate
judge’s 	recommendation 	as 	to 	unpaid 	minimum 	wages 	is 	modified 	and 	the 	remaining
recommendations are adopted in their entirety. Plaintiff’s unpaid minimum wages claim is denied
because she neither alleged an NYLL minimum wage claim nor established minimum wage
damages pursuant to the FLSA.
It is well established that a Court cannot grant default judgment on a claim that is not pled
because “[i]f a plaintiff could simply proceed to judgment solely on factual allegations that could
support a multitude of legal claims and otherwise delay or prevent identification of its legal claims,
Case 1:23-cv-03630-DLI-MMH Document 50 Filed 11/20/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
a defendant would not know the full scope of its exposure or available defenses. See, Mirabal v.
Alumaline, Inc., 2022 WL 1559535, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2022) (quoting Wilson v. Muckala,
303 F.3d 1207, 1215–16 (10th Cir. 2002)). 	Otherwise, a plaintiff’s generically pled complaint
could be used as an offensive cudgel in default judgment proceedings to obtain more expansive
liability and damages than Plaintiff otherwise might be entitled to. Id. at *2.
Here, the complaint exclusively alleges that Defendant failed to pay her minimum wages
pursuant to the FLSA. Compl. ¶¶ 42-49. However, Plaintiff clearly was aware of the provisions
of the NYLL as she alleged both FLSA and NYLL claims for unpaid overtime wages, which makes
the lack of claims pursuant to NYLL for unpaid minimum wages all the more glaring. Id. ¶¶ 31-
41. Additionally, this Court recently held that the FLSA does not incorporate NYLL. See, Jimenez
v. W&M Servs. Inc., 2025 WL 916921, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2025) (rejecting argument that
the FLSA provides a cause of action for state minimum wage laws). Thus, plaintiff must bring an
NYLL minimum wage claim if she wishes to recover damages pursuant to that statute.
Accordingly, the Court need only consider whether Plaintiff sufficiently established
Defendant’s liability as to her FLSA claim for unpaid minimum wages. 	See, Double Green
Produce, Inc. v. F. Supermarket Inc., 387 F. Supp.3d 260, 265 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (citation omitted).
The FLSA requires employers to pay employees a minimum wage, which currently is set at $7.25
per hour. 	29 U.S.C. § 206(a). 	The Court finds no clear error in the magistrate judge’s
determination that Plaintiff sufficiently established FLSA enterprise coverage against Defendant.
R&R at 12–13. “To state an FLSA minimum wage claim, it is sufficient for a plaintiff to allege
facts about her salary and working hours, such that a simple arithmetical calculation can be used
to determine the amount owed per pay period.” Tackie v. Keff Enters. LLC, 2014 WL 4626229, at
*3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2014). Additionally, the Court finds no clear error in the magistrate judge’s
finding that Plaintiff’s regular hourly rate was $8.73 from October 2021 through December 2021,
Case 1:23-cv-03630-DLI-MMH Document 50 Filed 11/20/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
and $10.90 from January 2022 to January 2026. See, R&R at 16. Both hourly rates are well above
the federal minimum wage. 	Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to establish liability for unpaid
minimum wages pursuant to the FLSA.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the R&R is adopted in part and modified only to the extent
that this Court finds that Plaintiff is not entitled to any unpaid minimum wages under the NYLL
as that claim was not pled in the complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff is awarded $19,704.44 in unpaid
overtime wages and $19,704.44 in liquidated damages. 	Additionally, Plaintiff is awarded post-
judgment interest to be calculated at the rate set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1961 from the date the Clerk
of Court enters judgment in this action until the date of payment. 	Moreover, Plaintiff’s FLSA
unpaid minimum wages claim and NYLL wage statement and notice claims are denied.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
November 20, 2025
/s/
DORA L. IRIZARRY
United States District Judge
Case 1:23-cv-03630-DLI-MMH Document 50 Filed 11/20/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>