Garcia v. 2390 C LLC

Background

Ernesto Garcia alleged that he worked as a resident janitor at a 20-unit residential building from January 2019 until September 26, 2022. He alleged that he typically worked 40 hours per week performing janitorial duties for which he received $270 per week and a rent-free basement apartment. He further alleged that he performed at least 23 additional hours of unpaid, traditionally non-janitorial work each week, which he described as “menial physical labor.”

Garcia asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the federal wage-and-hour law, and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). He alleged unpaid minimum and overtime wages, inaccurate or missing wage records and statements, and violations affecting other current and former employees. The opinion states that 2390 Creston Realty LLC previously had a default judgment entered against it. The motion addressed in this opinion was brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint adequately states a legal claim.

FLSA Claims

The court held that Garcia plausibly alleged an employer-employee relationship. His allegations identified where he worked, his position, his employment period, and the physical labor he performed for the defendants. The court rejected the argument that he needed to provide more detail about the nature of the work to establish that relationship at the pleading stage.

The court nevertheless dismissed the FLSA overtime claim because Garcia did not provide enough factual detail to support a reasonable inference that he worked more than 40 hours in a particular workweek. Although he alleged that he typically worked 40 hours of janitorial work and at least 23 additional hours of non-janitorial work per week, he did not clearly state when or how often the extra hours occurred, whether he was scheduled to work them, or why and how he performed them without pay.

The court also dismissed any FLSA recordkeeping claim. It held that the FLSA does not provide employees with a private right to sue their employers directly for violations of the statute’s recordkeeping requirements. The court additionally noted that Garcia’s recordkeeping allegations lacked supporting factual detail.

NYLL Claims

The defendants argued that Garcia’s unpaid work was covered by the NYLL’s janitorial exemption, which excludes certain janitors in residential buildings from minimum-wage and overtime requirements. The court did not accept that argument as a basis for dismissal at this stage. Because Garcia described the work as non-janitorial and did not make clear whether the labor concerned the property’s maintenance or operation, the exemption was not apparent from the face of the complaint.

The court nevertheless dismissed Garcia’s NYLL unpaid-wage claim because it was based on the same insufficient allegations as his FLSA overtime claim. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—over his NYLL wage-statement claim after dismissing all federal claims. As a result, the court dismissed the NYLL claims as well.

Other Rulings and Disposition

Because the court dismissed the Amended Complaint in its entirety, it did not address the defendants’ arguments concerning the proposed class and collective action. The court also declined to transfer the case from White Plains to Manhattan, reasoning that at least half of the remaining parties resided in the Northern Counties under the district’s internal assignment rules.

Judge Nelson S. Román granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court dismissed Garcia’s claims in their entirety without prejudice and granted him leave to file a Second Amended Complaint by July 11, 2024. The court stated that the new complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the Amended Complaint. If Garcia failed to file it within the permitted time, the claims dismissed without prejudice would be deemed dismissed with prejudice.