Mombrun v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Developmentet al

Background

Gabriel Mombrun, a former employee of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), sued HPD, the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board, Anna Vaysman, Anita M. Armstrong, and unnamed defendants. The court construed the case as being brought against the City of New York because New York law requires actions seeking penalties for violations of law to be brought in the City’s name rather than against a city agency. The Clerk was directed to amend the caption accordingly.

Mombrun alleged that, while working in HPD’s Housing Lottery Unit from about April 2013 through October 2019, he regularly worked long hours and was not fully paid for his work. He alleged that he sometimes worked 90 to 112 hours in a seven-day week while being paid for 40 hours. He also alleged that he incurred unreimbursed work expenses. His other allegations concerned a Department of Investigation inquiry, discipline, suspension, resignation, and later administrative proceedings involving the Conflicts of Interest Board.

The amended complaint asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the New York Labor Law, and state common law for unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, defamation, and breach of contract. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not plead enough facts to support a legally plausible claim. Mombrun opposed the motion and alternatively sought leave to file a second amended complaint.

FLSA claims

The court held that the amended complaint plausibly alleged unpaid wages and overtime only for Mombrun’s work in the Housing Lottery Unit from April 2013 to October 2019. It found that the complaint lacked specific facts about hours, assignments, or wages during his work as a Hearing Representative from 2010 to 2013 and during his work in the Property Registration Unit and Mail Room after November 2020.

The court recognized that the FLSA claims based on Housing Lottery Unit work appeared untimely under the two-year limitations period, or the three-year period for willful violations. Because Mombrun filed the action on July 9, 2024, claims based on work ending in November 2020 would ordinarily be outside even the longer period. However, at the pleading stage, the court found that Mombrun plausibly alleged facts supporting equitable tolling, which can extend a filing deadline in exceptional circumstances. He alleged that defendants failed to provide required notices of his wage rights, that he lacked actual knowledge of his legal claim, and that he learned relevant information later. The court therefore denied the motion to dismiss the FLSA claims based on Housing Lottery Unit employment.

The court dismissed the FLSA claims based on Mombrun’s work as a Hearing Representative from 2010 to 2013 and in the Property Registration Unit and Mail Room from November 2020 to April 2022 because the amended complaint did not provide sufficient factual allegations showing violations during those periods.

New York Labor Law claims

The court granted the motion to dismiss all New York Labor Law claims. It explained that Article 6 excludes governmental agencies from the definition of covered employers. Although Mombrun argued that Article 19 did not contain the same exclusion in its employer definition, the court found that Article 19 separately excludes employees of federal, state, or municipal governments and their political subdivisions. The court also noted that the spread-of-hours regulation cited by Mombrun applies to restaurants and all-year hotels and does not cover government employees.

Unjust enrichment and fraudulent concealment

The court dismissed Mombrun’s unjust enrichment and fraudulent concealment claims because he did not plead compliance with New York’s Notice of Claim requirement. A Notice of Claim generally must be filed with the municipality within 90 days after the claim arises. The amended complaint did not allege that Mombrun had satisfied that requirement.

The court later stated that these claims were dismissed without prejudice to renewal if Mombrun could demonstrate compliance with the Notice of Claim requirement. It denied the proposed amended complaint as futile because the notices alleged in that pleading were filed after the claims arose and Mombrun did not allege that a state court had granted permission for a late notice. The court granted leave to make a renewed motion to amend these claims within 21 days, with additional factual allegations showing compliance. If Mombrun did not make that motion within 21 days, the claims would be dismissed with prejudice and without further advance notice.

Defamation and breach of contract

The court dismissed Mombrun’s defamation and breach of contract claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Supplemental jurisdiction permits a federal court to hear related state-law claims, but these claims arose from investigations, discipline, resignation, and administrative proceedings that did not share a common nucleus of facts with the FLSA wage claims. The court therefore found no basis to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. These claims were dismissed without prejudice to litigation in a forum with proper jurisdiction. The court allowed Mombrun to include allegations addressing the jurisdictional defect in a proposed amended complaint filed within 21 days.

Motion to amend and disposition

The court denied Mombrun’s motion to amend entirely as futile. It explained that amendment is futile when the proposed pleading would still fail under the standards governing a motion to dismiss. The court found that the proposed amendment did not cure the defects in the claims it repeated, including the FLSA claims for unsupported employment periods and the state-law claims requiring a timely Notice of Claim.

In its final disposition, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The FLSA claims based on Housing Lottery Unit employment remained at the pleading stage, while the FLSA claims for the other identified periods were dismissed. The New York Labor Law claims were dismissed with prejudice. The unjust enrichment and fraudulent concealment claims were dismissed without prejudice to renewal under the stated 21-day procedure. The defamation and breach of contract claims were dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The order also directed the caption to substitute the City of New York for HPD and the Conflicts of Interest Board and referred the case to Magistrate Judge Gary Stein for general pretrial management.