Rivera Peralta v. La Morena Restaurant Corp.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:25-cv-03396
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Rivera Peralta v. La Morena Restaurant, Judge Cave granted Rivera Peralta’s unopposed motion to add two defendants to her wage lawsuit.
Belgica Rivera Peralta, the three original defendants, and the two defendants she sought to add. The ruling allowed the amended complaint to be filed and established service and response deadlines; it did not decide whether the wage claims were valid.
What happened
Belgica Rivera Peralta sued La Morena Restaurant Corp., Ronald Rodriguez Perez, and Virgen Isabel Perez De Rodriguez under federal and New York wage laws. She alleges that they did not pay required minimum wages, overtime, and other compensation, or provide required wage notices and statements. She asked to add Juan Ramos Peralta and Sabor de Mi Abuela Mar y Tierra Restaurant II Corp., whom she alleges took over the restaurant’s ownership and operation in July 2024.
The defendants did not oppose the request. The court found no showing of undue delay, bad faith, or prejudice, and determined that the proposed additions were not plainly futile under the rule allowing amendments when justice requires.
In Belgica Rivera Peralta v. La Morena Restaurant Corp., et al., Judge Sarah L. Cave granted the motion to amend. She ordered Rivera Peralta to re-file the amended complaint, serve the existing defendants and the two new defendants by specified deadlines, and required the defendants to respond within 21 days after service.
The detailed version
- Rivera Peralta v. La Morena Restaurant Corp. · No. 1:25-cv-03396
- Vernon Broderick
- Aug. 5, 2025
Background
Belgica Rivera Peralta sued La Morena Restaurant Corp., Ronald Rodriguez Perez, and Virgen Isabel Perez De Rodriguez. She alleged claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law, and the New York Labor Law. Her allegations concern unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, spread-of-hours compensation, and missing wage notices and wage statements.
The original defendants did not respond to the complaint. The court had directed Rivera Peralta to begin proceedings seeking a judgment based on that failure to respond, but later held that deadline while she sought permission to amend her complaint.
Motion to Amend
Rivera Peralta moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) to add Juan Ramos Peralta and Sabor de Mi Abuela Mar y Tierra Restaurant II Corp. as defendants. She alleged that the new defendants took over ownership and operation of the restaurant where she works in July 2024. Neither the original defendants nor the proposed new defendants responded to the motion.
Rule 15(a)(2) generally directs courts to freely allow amendments when justice requires. The court explained that leave to amend may be denied for substantial reasons such as undue delay, bad faith, futility, or prejudice to the opposing party.
Court’s Analysis
Because the defendants did not respond, they had not shown that Rivera Peralta unduly delayed, acted in bad faith, or caused prejudice. The court also found that the proposed revisions adding the new defendants were not so plainly futile that amendment would be improper.
Ruling and Required Actions
The court granted Rivera Peralta’s unopposed motion to amend. It ordered her to re-file the proposed amended complaint on the public docket by August 8, 2025, as the operative pleading. By August 29, 2025, she had to serve the original defendants with the amended complaint and serve the new defendants with both a summons and the amended complaint, then file proof of service. The defendants must respond within 21 days after service. The clerk was directed to close the motion docket entry.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.