Xue v. Koenig

Background

Feng Xue and Calculus Trading Technology, LLC sued Stewart Koenig and Prime Consulting International, LLC under the Fair Labor Standards Act, unspecified New York and New Jersey labor laws, common law for failure to pay wages, quantum meruit, and New York’s Freelancing Isn’t Free Act. The opinion states that Prime was a staffing agency controlled by Koenig.

Xue performed information-technology work for BNY-Cowen. His work and payments were arranged through Calculus: Xue worked for BNY-Cowen, Prime paid Calculus, and Xue received payments as a Calculus employee. The opinion states that Xue owned 25% of Calculus, managed it, and that his wife owned 75%.

Prime did not pay Calculus for services performed near the end of 2017. The unpaid invoices totaled $50,798. BNY-Cowen had paid Prime for those services.

Motion

Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment seeking payment of the $50,798, 9% state-law prejudgment interest, double damages, and attorney’s fees under the Freelancing Isn’t Free Act. The court understood the motion to seek relief for Calculus against Prime based on unpaid invoices, although the motion materials used “Plaintiff” and “Plaintiffs” inconsistently and did not clearly identify the target defendant.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, a party seeking summary judgment must identify each claim or defense, or part of a claim or defense, on which it seeks judgment. The moving party must also identify evidence showing that no genuine dispute of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Court’s analysis

The court found that the motion was procedurally deficient. Plaintiffs’ supporting memorandum contained only three conclusory sentences. It stated that Calculus was entitled to the unpaid amount, prejudgment interest, and relief under the Freelancing Isn’t Free Act, but it did not clearly identify the legal theory supporting payment of the unpaid amount.

The court noted that the complaint and motion papers referred to the Fair Labor Standards Act, unspecified state labor laws, common-law failure to pay wages, the Freelancing Isn’t Free Act, and quantum meruit. But the materials did not specify which claim or claims supported the requested $50,798 or explain how Calculus’s employment relationship with Prime entitled it to relief. The court declined to search the record or construct plaintiffs’ legal arguments for them.

The court also found that plaintiffs mis cited and did not explain the relevance of a case involving prejudgment interest. Regarding the Freelancing Isn’t Free Act, the court stated that plaintiffs had not identified evidence establishing the absence of a genuine factual dispute about whether they met the Act’s definition of a freelance worker. Plaintiffs’ reply did not cure these problems; it added references to the Act and quantum meruit without describing the elements of those claims or identifying undisputed evidence supporting them.

The court emphasized that plaintiffs had been represented by counsel throughout the case. It therefore declined to allow them to resubmit the motion based on the court’s discretion to give pro se litigants an opportunity to correct similar deficiencies.

Disposition

The court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment with prejudice. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 115. The opinion also states that a pretrial teleconference was scheduled for May 1, 2025.