Chen v. Hunan Manor Enterprise, Inc.
- George Daniels
- 1:17-cv-00802
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Chen v. Hunan Manor, Judge Daniels denied A Taste of Mao Defendants’ motion to alter the amended judgment as untimely.
The ruling directly affected A Taste of Mao, Inc. and Zhenqi Xiao, whose motion to alter the amended judgment was denied. The existing judgment concerning the plaintiffs’ unpaid-wage and overtime awards was not altered by this order.
What happened
In Chen v. Hunan Manor Enterprise, Inc., the plaintiffs sued several restaurant businesses and individuals under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York labor law. After a bench trial, the court found the defendants liable for unpaid overtime and minimum wages and later amended the damages calculations and awards.
A Taste of Mao, Inc. and Zhenqi Xiao asked the court to alter the amended judgment. They sought to decertify the collective action, reduce the plaintiffs’ recovery based on alleged defects in consent forms, and reduce interest and legal fees based on alleged delays during discovery.
The court denied the motion as untimely because the arguments did not concern the changes made in the amended judgment. Judge George B. Daniels directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion.
The detailed version
- Chen v. Hunan Manor Enterprise, Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-00802
- George Daniels
- July 8, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York labor law by failing to pay required minimum wages and overtime. After a bench trial held between February 13 and March 13, 2023, the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52 and found the defendants liable for unpaid overtime and minimum wages.
The Clerk of Court entered judgment on August 30, 2023. Both sides moved for reconsideration. In an amended decision, the court awarded spread-of-hours pay to four plaintiffs and corrected the damages calculations for five plaintiffs. The court denied the remaining requests for reconsideration, and the Clerk entered an amended judgment on December 5, 2023.
Motion to Alter the Amended Judgment
A Taste of Mao, Inc. and Zhenqi Xiao—the “Taste of Mao Defendants”—filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) on January 2, 2024. They asked the court to decertify the collective action, adjust the plaintiffs’ damages based on an asserted lack of jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and adjust interest calculations based on alleged delays by the plaintiffs.
Rule 59(e) generally requires a motion to alter or amend a judgment to be filed within 28 days after entry of the judgment. When a judgment is amended, a motion filed within 28 days of the amended judgment is timely only to the extent it challenges changes made by that amendment. Arguments unrelated to those changes remain subject to the earlier deadline.
The court determined that the motion was timely only as to the amended judgment. The amended decision changed the awards of spread-of-hours pay and certain damages calculations. The Taste of Mao Defendants’ arguments about decertifying the collective action and alleged discovery delays did not relate to those changes. The court also stated that the decertification arguments had already been treated as moot and untimely when previously raised.
Disposition
Because the Taste of Mao Defendants did not argue that they were harmed by any alteration in the amended judgment, the court denied their Motion to Alter the Amended Judgment as untimely. Judge George B. Daniels directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at ECF No. 398.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.