Marco Antonio Perez Perez and Jose Eduardo Arias v. Construction

Background

Marco Antonio Perez Perez and Jose Eduardo Sanchez Arias brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the federal wage-and-hour law, and the New York Labor Law. They alleged that the defendants failed to pay promised wages and overtime for construction work performed at multiple projects between 2017 and 2019.

The remaining defendants were JRS Services, LLC; Nations Construction, Inc.; Elias Osmin Alvarez Palacios; and Jenny Carolina Alvarez. The opinion states that Palacios owned JRS Services and Alvarez owned Nations. The plaintiffs’ claims against Escobar Construction, Inc. and other defendants had already been voluntarily terminated.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to rule without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the outcome. The parties disputed, among other things, how the plaintiffs were paid, who controlled their work, and whether they were employees or independent subcontractors.

Court’s Analysis

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the FLSA claims. The court held that whether the defendants were covered employers under the FLSA concerned the merits of the claims, not the court’s power to hear them. The court also rejected the personal-jurisdiction argument because the defendants had waived that defense by not properly raising it in their first responsive pleading.

The court held that the FLSA’s ordinary two-year limitations period applied because the plaintiffs had not provided evidence showing that the alleged violations were willful. Under the FLSA, a willful violation can extend the limitations period to three years, but the court found that the plaintiffs’ arguments lacked supporting record citations and did not show that the defendants knowingly or recklessly violated the law.

The court ruled that the FLSA claims based on the Binghamton, Elmira, Kansas City, Columbus, New Albany, Lafayette, and Huntington projects were time barred. Those claims were first raised when the plaintiffs sought permission to file their Second Amended Complaint on October 10, 2022, while the plaintiffs’ work had ended by February 2019.

For the Ithaca project, the court concluded that some claims could be timely depending on the defendant and the date of the allegedly unlawful paycheck. The court nevertheless granted summary judgment on those timely claims because the plaintiffs conceded, and the evidence did not show, that any remaining defendant was involved in the Ithaca project. Nations was not incorporated until after the project ended, JRS Services had dissolved before the relevant later claims arose, and the plaintiffs presented no evidence that Palacios or Alvarez worked on the Ithaca project.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety. It directed judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ federal claims. Because those claims were dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—and dismissed the plaintiffs’ New York Labor Law claims without prejudice to litigation in a forum with jurisdiction. The Clerk was directed to close the case.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the Memorandum Opinion and Order on September 25, 2025.