Lan v. 1353 Kingston Wok LLC

Background

Dounfuh Lan sued 1353 Kingston Wok LLC, doing business as Kingston Wok, and Junxing Pan under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). Lan alleged that he worked at the defendants’ restaurant from about March 8, 2022, through July 16, 2022. He alleged that Kingston had annual gross revenue exceeding $500,000 and handled goods that moved in interstate commerce.

Lan alleged that Pan hired him, set his schedule and pay, supervised his work, and maintained employment records. Lan claimed that the defendants paid him a fixed monthly amount of $300 while he worked about 66 hours per week, failed to pay the required minimum wage and overtime, failed to provide proper notice of any tip credit, and did not keep accurate records. He also alleged that the defendants failed to provide a proper time-of-hire notice and accurate pay statements.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the complaint did not state claims on which relief could be granted.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Lan adequately alleged that Kingston was covered by the FLSA. The complaint alleged that Kingston had more than $500,000 in annual revenue and purchased and handled goods moved in interstate commerce. The court concluded that these allegations, together with reasonable inferences about the supplies used by a restaurant, were sufficient at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The court therefore denied dismissal of Lan’s FLSA claims against Kingston.

The court reached a different conclusion as to Pan. Although Lan alleged that Pan hired him, controlled his schedule and work, set his pay, supervised him, and kept records, the court found these allegations insufficiently factual to establish that Pan was an employer under the FLSA. The court described them as restating the legal definition of an employer and dismissed Lan’s FLSA claims against Pan without prejudice.

The court also dismissed Lan’s NYLL claims in Counts IV and V, which concerned required time-of-hire notices and pay statements. The court held that Lan lacked standing to bring those claims because he did not allege a concrete injury resulting from the missing or inaccurate notices and statements. Those claims were dismissed without prejudice.

As to NYLL Counts I, VI, and VII, which the opinion says were labeled as Count II in the complaint, the defendants argued only that the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction because Lan’s FLSA claims would be dismissed. Because the court did not dismiss Lan’s FLSA claims against Kingston, it exercised supplemental jurisdiction and denied the motion to dismiss those NYLL claims.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss Lan’s Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action without prejudice and granted the motion as to Lan’s FLSA claims against Pan, also without prejudice. The court denied the motion as to Lan’s FLSA claims against Kingston and denied it as to NYLL Counts I, VI, and VII.

The court gave Lan until November 8, 2024, to file an amended complaint. If he did not timely amend, the claims dismissed without prejudice would be deemed dismissed with prejudice. If he filed an amended complaint, the defendants were directed to answer or otherwise respond by November 29, 2024.