Recio v. D'Almonte Enterprises Parking Garage, Inc.

Background

Former parking garage attendants Isidro Recio, Dario Almonte, Radhames Rodriguez, Jose Pichardo de la Cruz, Ulrich Zimerman Hernandez, and opt-in plaintiff Ramon Muñoz brought a proposed collective and class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the New York Labor Law (NYLL), and New York’s Wage Theft Protection Act (WTPA). They sued D’Almonte Enterprises Parking Garage, Inc., IB Parking Lot, Inc., BPC Webster, Ramcell Parking Corp., 119 Parking Lot Corp., Rafael Almonte, and Ariel Reyes. The plaintiffs filed a partial motion for summary judgment, asking the court to decide several issues without a trial.

The court first held that material facts remained disputed about whether Rafael Almonte and Ariel Reyes were employers under the FLSA and NYLL and whether the corporate defendants operated as a single integrated enterprise. The court therefore denied summary judgment against Almonte and Reyes and considered the motion separately as to each plaintiff and corporate defendant.

Rulings

The court denied summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ argument that the FLSA’s three-year limitations period applied because the defendants’ violations were willful. The court found disputed facts concerning willfulness and denied summary judgment on FLSA claims outside the standard two-year period.

On claims for overtime pay for weeks in which workers recorded more than 40 hours, the court:

- Granted Muñoz’s FLSA claims against D’Almonte Enterprises and BPC Webster. - Granted NYLL claims by Dario Almonte against Ramcell Parking; by Rodriguez, Recio, and Muñoz against D’Almonte Enterprises; and by Muñoz against BPC Webster. - Granted summary judgment only as to liability because damages-related facts remained disputed, including which NYLL minimum-wage rate applied and whether the FLSA violations were willful. The FLSA claims granted on this issue were limited to the two-year limitations period. - Denied summary judgment for the remaining plaintiffs and defendants on this issue.

On claims for an overtime premium for off-the-clock work exceeding 40 hours per week, the court denied summary judgment on all FLSA claims. It granted summary judgment only as to liability on NYLL claims by Dario Almonte against Ramcell Parking and by Rodriguez and Recio against D’Almonte Enterprises, while reserving damages for trial. It denied summary judgment on this issue for all other plaintiffs and defendants.

On claims for unpaid wages for off-the-clock work before and after regular shifts, the court denied summary judgment on all FLSA claims. It granted NYLL claims by Muñoz against 119 Parking; by Hernandez and Dario Almonte against Ramcell Parking; by Rodriguez and Recio against D’Almonte Enterprises; and by de la Cruz against IB Parking. Damages on those claims were left for trial. The court denied summary judgment for all other plaintiffs and defendants on this issue.

The court denied summary judgment on the claim that the defendants paid the plaintiffs using the lower wage rate for small employers instead of the higher rate for large employers, because material facts were disputed.

On wage deductions, the court found no material factual dispute that D’Almonte Enterprises deducted customer underpayments from employees’ wages in violation of NYLL § 193. It granted Recio, Muñoz, and Rodriguez summary judgment against D’Almonte Enterprises on liability, with damages to be decided at trial. It denied summary judgment on the remaining wage-deduction claims and also denied summary judgment concerning deductions for repairing damage to customer vehicles because material facts were disputed.

Finally, on allegedly deficient WTPA notices under NYLL § 195, the court granted summary judgment, with damages to be determined at trial, for: Recio against D’Almonte Enterprises and Ramcell Parking; Dario Almonte against Ramcell Parking; Rodriguez against D’Almonte Enterprises, Ramcell Parking, and 119 Parking; de la Cruz against IB Parking; Hernandez against Ramcell Parking; and Muñoz against Ramcell Parking, D’Almonte Enterprises, 119 Parking, and BPC Webster.

Disposition and next steps

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion in part and denied it in part. The court directed the parties to contact Magistrate Judge Stein to schedule a settlement conference and to report whether settlement was reached. The parties also had to submit a joint letter identifying their available trial dates and estimated trial length. The Clerk was directed to terminate the plaintiffs’ motion at ECF No. 95.