Zamora v. Ljubica Contractors LLC
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:18-cv-00419
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Zamora v. Ljubica Contractors, Judge Broderick denied dismissal of Benitez’s claims and granted his request to testify remotely.
The ruling directly affected Plaintiff Luis Benitez, whose wage claims remained pending and who was permitted to testify remotely, and the Defendants, whose standing challenge was denied and who were required to participate in safeguards for the video testimony.
What happened
Juan Zamora and Luis Benitez sued Ljubica Contractors LLC and Predrag Jankovic for unpaid overtime and lost wages under federal and New York wage laws. Before their scheduled jury trial, Benitez asked to testify by video because immigration authorities had removed him from the United States and he could not lawfully return. Defendants argued that Benitez lacked the legal ability to sue and that remote testimony would impair their ability to cross-examine him.
The court rejected the standing challenge. It explained that the federal Fair Labor Standard Act and New York Labor Law protect workers regardless of immigration status when they seek payment for work they already performed. The court also found good cause and compelling circumstances for remote testimony because Benitez could not legally attend trial in person.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied Defendants’ request to dismiss Benitez’s claims and granted Plaintiffs’ request for Benitez to testify remotely by video conference. The parties were ordered to propose safeguards addressing exhibits, technology testing, translation, who could be present with Benitez, identity verification, and interruptions in the video connection.
The detailed version
- Zamora v. Ljubica Contractors LLC · No. 1:18-cv-00419
- Vernon Broderick
- Aug. 29, 2025
Background
Juan Zamora and Luis Benitez brought claims against Ljubica Contractors LLC and Predrag Jankovic for unpaid overtime and lost wages under the federal Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). A three-day jury trial was scheduled to begin on September 8, 2025.
Benitez asked to appear remotely because immigration authorities had recently removed him from the United States, and Plaintiffs represented that he could not lawfully reenter. Defendants opposed remote testimony, citing concerns about cross-examination, witness credibility, technology, and possible outside influence. Defendants also argued that, if Benitez had not been legally permitted to work in the United States during the relevant period, he lacked standing—the legal ability to bring the claims—and that his claims should be dismissed.
Standing Under the FLSA and NYLL
The court held that Benitez had standing to pursue his wage claims. It relied on decisions stating that the FLSA and NYLL protect citizens and undocumented workers alike, and that immigration status does not prevent a worker from recovering unpaid wages for work actually performed.
The court distinguished Defendants’ cited authorities. One case involved a plaintiff who left the United States after filing suit. The other concerned backpay for work that would have been performed after an employee’s discharge, rather than payment for work already completed. Because Benitez sought compensation for work already performed, the court held that Defendants could not use his immigration status as a defense to the FLSA or NYLL claims. Defendants’ request to dismiss Benitez’s claims for lack of standing was DENIED.
Remote Trial Testimony
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(a) generally requires trial testimony to be given in open court, but permits testimony from another location by live transmission when there is good cause, compelling circumstances, and appropriate safeguards.
The court found those requirements satisfied. Benitez had been deported and might not legally reenter the United States, making in-person attendance legally infeasible rather than merely inconvenient. The court therefore granted Plaintiffs’ request for Benitez to testify remotely by video conference.
Required Safeguards
The court ordered the parties to meet and confer and submit a joint protocol for the remote testimony. The proposed procedures had to address:
- when and how the parties would exchange exhibits; - when and how documents would be provided to Benitez during examination; - testing the technology before trial; - Plaintiffs’ responsibility for the costs of the video connection; - use of a certified translator; - ensuring that no unauthorized person was present with or communicated with Benitez while he testified; - whether Benitez’s current country of residence permitted remote testimony; - confirming Benitez’s identity; - ensuring that Benitez could see the judge, jury box, and attorneys; and - procedures for interruptions in the video feed.
The parties were ordered to submit their joint letter by September 2, 2025. The court also rescheduled the telephonic pretrial conference from September 2 to September 3, 2025.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.