Li v. New Asia Chinese Restaurant Wan Da Inc

Background

Changshan Li alleged that he worked for New Asia Chinese Restaurant Wan Da, Inc. as a food-delivery employee from approximately April 4, 2020, through April 2, 2022. He alleged that he worked about 67 hours during a six-day workweek but received a flat monthly salary without overtime pay. He also alleged that the defendants did not provide required written wage notices or accurate earnings statements and fired him after he said he intended to file a wage complaint.

Li asserted ten claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Minnesota Prevailing Wage Act. He also sought class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. New Asia and Hong Sheng Lin asserted a counterclaim against Li for “blackmail and extortion,” alleging that Li obtained a car, an apartment, and a leased car through false pretenses and later threatened to sue the defendants into bankruptcy.

Rong Lin’s Motions

Rong Lin moved to dismiss Li’s claims against her based on insufficient service of process, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim. The court found that the docket contained no filing or other document showing that Li had served Rong Lin. The court nevertheless declined to dismiss the claims at that point and instead allowed Li 30 days from the order’s date to correct any service defects.

The court therefore denied Rong Lin’s July 22, 2022 motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process. The court did not decide her remaining grounds for dismissal. It also denied as moot her alternative motion for a more definite statement. The court treated an earlier copy of the motion as erroneously filed and denied that copy as moot.

Counterclaim

Li moved under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) to dismiss New Asia and Hong Sheng Lin’s counterclaim. Rule 12(b)(6) allows dismissal when a pleading does not state a legally sufficient claim for relief.

The court held that Minnesota law does not recognize a separate civil cause of action for extortion. Although Minnesota Statutes section 609.27 establishes a criminal extortion offense, the court concluded that the statute does not create a private right to obtain civil relief. Because the defendants relied exclusively on that statute for their counterclaim, the court concluded that the counterclaim did not state a plausible civil claim.

Disposition

The court denied Rong Lin’s motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process and gave Li 30 days to perfect service on her. It denied as moot Rong Lin’s alternative motion for a more definite statement. It granted Li’s motion to dismiss New Asia and Hong Sheng Lin’s counterclaim. The order did not decide the merits of Li’s wage claims.