Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 11, 2024

Diaz v. D'Angel Auto Body Repair, Inc.

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:24-cv-04220
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
FlsaMotion to DismissCivil ProcedureEmployment
In one sentence

In Diaz v. D’Angel Auto Body Repair, Judge Ramos granted defendants’ motion to dismiss; federal wage claims ended, while state claims could be repleaded in state court.

Who this affects

Diaz’s federal wage claim was dismissed with prejudice, while his New York City Labor Law and related regulatory claims were dismissed without prejudice to repleading them in state court. The defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted.

What happened

In Diaz v. D’Angel Auto Body Repair, Diaz sued D’Angel Auto Body Repair, Inc., 149 Auto Body Repair Corporation, and Juan Lantigua under the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York City Labor Law, and related New York regulations. Defendants argued that their annual revenue was below the federal law’s $500,000 coverage threshold.

The court agreed that the federal wage claim could not proceed because Diaz did not contest that the revenue requirement could not be met. It dismissed the Fair Labor Standards Act claim with prejudice. Because that federal claim was dismissed, the court declined to decide the remaining state-law claims.

Judge Edgardo Ramos granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The New York City Labor Law and related regulatory claims were dismissed without prejudice to repleading them in state court.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Diaz v. D'Angel Auto Body Repair, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-04220
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
Sept. 11, 2024

Background

Robert Diaz brought claims against D’Angel Auto Body Repair, Inc., doing business as Flat Fix Tires, 149 Auto Body Repair Corporation, and Juan Lantigua under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York City Labor Law, and related provisions of New York regulations. The defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Lantigua filed the response for himself and attempted to file for the two corporations as well. The court noted that a corporation may appear in federal court only through an attorney, but considered Lantigua’s argument about the Fair Labor Standards Act’s revenue requirement as if it had been made by the corporate defendants.

Fair Labor Standards Act Claim

The court explained that coverage under the Fair Labor Standards Act requires, among other things, an employer engaged in interstate commerce to have gross annual sales of at least $500,000. Defendants asserted that this requirement could not be met, and Diaz did not contest that point after receiving documents concerning the defendants’ revenue.

The court therefore dismissed Diaz’s Fair Labor Standards Act claim with prejudice.

State-Law Claims

The court had federal-question jurisdiction based on the Fair Labor Standards Act claim. After dismissing that claim, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—instead of deciding the New York City Labor Law and related regulatory claims. Those claims were dismissed without prejudice to repleading them in state court.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The opinion does not state that the court decided the merits of the state-law claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.