Vicente v. Ljubica Contractors LLC and Pedro [LNU]

Background

Juan Zamora and Luis Benitez performed construction work for Ljubica Contractors LLC. They claimed that they were employees, worked six or seven days per week and sometimes until 8:00 p.m. or 10:00 p.m., and were not paid for overtime or their final four weeks of work. Jankovic, whom the opinion identifies as Ljubica’s owner and day-to-day manager, described Zamora and Benitez as independent contractors and disputed their accounts of their schedules, supervision, tools, and unpaid wages. The parties agreed that the plaintiffs did not receive wage-and-hour notices or paystubs.

The plaintiffs asserted claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law for unpaid overtime, unpaid wages, and failures to provide required notices and paystubs. Both sides moved for summary judgment, asking the court to decide claims without a trial when no genuine dispute of material fact exists. Defendants also sought summary judgment concerning Vicente’s claims, the plaintiffs’ employee status, Jankovic’s employer status, and Zamora’s ability to pursue class claims.

Rulings on the Parties’ Status

The court rejected Defendants’ argument that Benitez had already been removed from the case and denied their motion as to him. The court adopted Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang’s recommendation concerning Vicente. Because Vicente did not respond to an order after his counsel withdrew, the court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Vicente and dismissed Vicente from the action.

For Zamora and Benitez, the court held that genuine factual disputes prevented summary judgment for either side on whether they were employees rather than independent contractors. The disputes included who controlled their schedules and work, whether they could accept or reject jobs, whether they were supervised, who supplied their tools, and whether their relationships with Ljubica were exclusive. The court also denied summary judgment for both sides on whether Ljubica and Jankovic were employers under the labor laws. The relevant question was whether they had sufficient control over the workers, not simply whether Jankovic had an ownership interest in Ljubica.

Claims for Unpaid Overtime and Wages

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on their unpaid-overtime claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The court stated that the plaintiffs had not provided evidence establishing that Defendants knew or should have known about the overtime hours. Jankovic testified that he did not know the hours they worked, and the court could not resolve his credibility against the plaintiffs at the summary-judgment stage.

The court also denied summary judgment on the unpaid-wages claims. It explained that the Fair Labor Standards Act does not provide a claim for agreed-upon wages beyond minimum-wage and overtime claims. The New York Labor Law can support a separate claim for wages earned but not paid, but Jankovic’s testimony that the plaintiffs were fully paid created a factual dispute about whether they worked without compensation.

Wage Notices and Paystubs

The court granted the plaintiffs summary judgment on the issue of whether Defendants failed to provide wage-and-hour notices and paystubs required by the New York Labor Law. Jankovic admitted that Defendants did not provide them, and Defendants did not oppose summary judgment on that issue. The court noted, however, that the plaintiffs still had to establish at trial that they were employees and that Defendants were employers covered by the New York Labor Law. They did not need to prove again that the notices and paystubs were missing.

Class Claims and Additional Damages

The court denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Zamora’s class claims because Zamora’s individual New York Labor Law claim had not been resolved against him. The court also denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on liquidated damages, attorney fees, and costs because summary judgment was denied on the underlying labor-law claims.

Disposition

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part. The court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Vicente and dismissed Vicente from the action. The balance of Defendants’ motion was denied. The court directed the parties to prepare for a conference concerning trial dates and settlement.