Abbott v. Comme Des Garcons, Ltd.

Background

Defendants Dover Street Market New York LLC, Comme Des Garçons, Ltd., Elaine Beuther, and James Gilchrist moved to dismiss the Third and Fourth Claims for Relief in the Third Amended Complaint. They also requested attorneys’ fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Magistrate Judge Cave issued a report and recommendation advising that the motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part and that the fee request be denied. No party objected.

Court’s analysis

Because no party objected, Judge Caproni reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error. The court found none and adopted the recommendation in its entirety.

The court agreed that, assuming the allegations in the Third Amended Complaint were true, the plaintiffs had standing to bring the Third and Fourth Claims for Relief. Standing is the requirement that a plaintiff be legally entitled to ask a court to decide a claim.

The court also agreed that the Third Claim was time-barred under New York Labor Law § 195(1)(a) for plaintiffs Elizabeth Ammerman, Curtis Hennager, Blake Martin, Madison Murphy, Winston Tolliver, David Unich, and Dylan Warmack because they were hired before June 3, 2015. The court did not dismiss the Third Claim as untimely for Daniel Abbott, Gabriel Herrera, and Fnan Ysahak because the complaint did not specify when in 2015 they were hired, so untimeliness was not clear from the complaint itself.

Because the motion to dismiss was granted only in part, the court agreed that the plaintiffs’ claims were not wholly frivolous. It therefore rejected defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees under Section 1927.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. It denied the motion to dismiss the Third and Fourth Claims for lack of standing. It granted the motion to dismiss the Third Claim as untimely for Ammerman, Hennager, Martin, Murphy, Tolliver, Unich, and Warmack, and denied that motion as to Abbott, Herrera, and Ysahak. It denied defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees under Section 1927.

The court stated that no party’s failure to object to the report and recommendation precluded appellate review and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the open motion at Docket 127.