Morales v. Performance Master, Inc.
- Subramanian
- 1:21-cv-00097
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Morales v. Performance Master, Inc., Judge Subramanian granted summary judgment to Joah Samuel but allowed claims against remaining defendants to continue.
Plaintiffs and Defendant Joah Samuel were directly affected by the ruling: summary judgment was granted in Samuel’s favor, while the remaining claims were not dismissed and plaintiffs received deadlines concerning default certificates and default-judgment motions against the remaining defendants.
What happened
In Morales v. Performance Master, Inc., the court had previously granted summary judgment to some defendants and asked the plaintiffs to address whether Joah Samuel should receive the same ruling and whether the remaining claims should be dismissed because of delays in prosecuting the case.
The plaintiffs argued that Samuel was their employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act because he opened and closed the project and gave them timesheets. The court rejected those arguments for the same reasons it had rejected similar arguments against other defendants, granted summary judgment in Samuel’s favor, and directed that he be removed from the docket. The court did not dismiss the remaining claims for failure to prosecute.
Judge Arun Subramanian adopted the plaintiffs’ proposed schedule: plaintiffs had until July 2, 2024, to seek certificates of default against the remaining defendants and two weeks after those certificates were issued to file motions for default judgment.
The detailed version
- Morales v. Performance Master, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-00097
- Subramanian
- June 25, 2024
Background
On June 6, 2024, the court granted summary judgment in favor of some defendants. It then ordered the plaintiffs to address whether Defendant Joah Samuel should be dismissed on the same grounds used for the Horsemen Defendants and whether the remaining claims should be dismissed for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward. The plaintiffs did not submit their letter by the original June 14 deadline. After the court extended the deadline to June 24 and warned that the claims would be dismissed if no letter was filed, the plaintiffs submitted their letter on June 24.
Ruling on Joah Samuel
The plaintiffs continued to argue that Samuel was their employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act. They relied on evidence that Samuel opened and closed the project and gave them timesheets to sign in and out of work. The court found that these were the same tasks the plaintiffs had cited when arguing that the Horsemen Defendants were their employers. Because the court had already rejected those arguments, it held that the plaintiffs had not shown a genuine dispute over whether Samuel was their employer. The court therefore granted summary judgment in Samuel’s favor.
Remaining Claims and Disposition
The court did not dismiss the rest of the claims for failure to prosecute. It adopted the plaintiffs’ proposed schedule, giving them until July 2, 2024, to file for certificates of default as to the remaining defendants. The plaintiffs then had two weeks after the certificates were issued to file motions for default judgment. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate Samuel from the docket.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.