Lin v. Grand Sichuan 74 st Inc.

Background

Former employees of Grand Sichuan 74 sued the restaurant’s purported owners, operators, or managers under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Before trial, the employees agreed to dismiss all Fair Labor Standards Act claims. The court retained authority over the New York Labor Law claims. It also dismissed various wage-notice and wage-statement claims for lack of standing, leaving specified claims for trial.

A jury trial took place from November 12 through November 20, 2024. The jury found each plaintiff’s employment period, weekly hours, and regular hourly wage. Except for Yunjian Lin, the plaintiffs were found not to have received the required minimum wage. The jury also found that certain plaintiffs worked but were not paid spread-of-hours wages and that the defendants were not entitled to take tip credits. The jury ruled for the defendants on overtime claims and found that the defendants acted in good faith.

Post-Trial Judgment

The plaintiffs sought judgment based on the special verdict, final default judgment against defendants who had not appeared, and attorney’s fees and costs. The employer defendants sought partial judgment as a matter of law after the verdict and also requested attorney’s fees and costs.

The court denied the employers’ request to overturn the verdict. Under the New York wage regulations, an employer seeking a tip credit had to prove that it gave employees written notice, in English and in the employee’s primary language, of the tip-credit amount. The defendants did not provide a basis for disturbing the jury’s finding that they were not entitled to tip credits.

The court also refused to dismiss the claims of Wei Wei Ding, Wei Ting Zhao, and Yuhai Zhu because they did not attend trial. The defendants had not subpoenaed those plaintiffs, their counsel represented them at trial, and the defendants had consented to the admission of their paystubs. The court held that the jury could consider those paystubs as evidence. The court awarded prejudgment interest on the wage damages at 9% per year, calculated from the midpoint of each plaintiff’s relevant employment period.

Because judgment was being entered against the appearing defendants, the court also granted final default judgment against the remaining defaulting defendants.

Attorney’s Fees and Costs

The plaintiffs requested $172,989.36 in attorney’s fees and $4,033.10 in costs. The court found that the plaintiffs’ limited recovery, withdrawn and unsuccessful motions seeking conditional collective certification, litigation delays and inefficiencies, and inadequate detail in the time records justified reductions. The court applied a 5% reduction for the collective-certification work, a 60% reduction for major litigation inefficiencies, and an additional 10% reduction for other inefficiencies, for a total fee reduction of 75%.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $43,247.34 in attorney’s fees and $4,033.10 in costs. It denied the defendants’ request for fees based on alleged misconduct involving service and the earlier default judgments because the defendants had not documented a reasonable fee amount, even though the court stated that the conduct might otherwise support fees or sanctions.

Disposition

The plaintiffs’ motion for judgment after the special verdict was granted. The defendants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the jury’s verdict was denied. The plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees and costs was granted in part, with reductions, and the defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees and costs was denied.