Heredia v. Americare, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs brought a wage-and-hour case against Americare, Inc., Martin Kleinman, and John Does #1-10 under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and common law. On July 13, 2020, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants. Summary judgment is a decision that resolves claims when the court determines there is no genuine dispute requiring a trial.

The plaintiffs then moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) for reconsideration, re-argument, or alteration of the summary-judgment decision. The court treated the request as a motion for reconsideration. It explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy and generally requires an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. A motion may not be used simply to relitigate issues already decided.

Plaintiffs’ Arguments

The plaintiffs identified four grounds. First, they argued that the court had failed to consider deposition testimony in which they said they complained about not receiving sleep or breaks during 24-hour live-in shifts and were not paid for more than 13 hours per shift. The court said it had considered their deposition testimony, declarations, and affidavits but found the testimony vague and general and found that the defendants had submitted undisputed proof that the plaintiffs received the required pay.

Second, the plaintiffs argued that Esthefany Heredia should not be penalized for documents produced late by Esla​ini Fernandez and Estela Taveras. The court said Heredia was not prejudiced by those productions because the records concerned 2019-2020, when Heredia was not employed by the defendants. The court also said the records were inadmissible for reasons unrelated to their late production, including the lack of translations. It further stated that the result would have been the same even if the records had been considered.

Third, the plaintiffs argued that Fernandez’s late-produced documents should not count against them because some records should have been in the defendants’ possession. The court again said the handwritten notes were inadmissible for an independent reason and that summary judgment for the defendants would have been warranted even if the notes were admissible.

Fourth, the plaintiffs requested permission to submit official Spanish translations of their declarations and affidavits. The court said it had already considered those materials and that the decision on the merits would have been the same even if they were fully considered. It also said the plaintiffs had previously had an opportunity to address the testimonial defects but had not sought to do so at that time.

Ruling

The court held that the plaintiffs’ motion did not meet the strict standard for reconsideration because it identified no controlling case law or new evidence and primarily repeated arguments already presented. The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. It also denied the defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in responding to the reconsideration motion. Judge Robert W. Lehrburger signed the order.