Huang v. Shanghai City Corp

Background

The court addressed four matters arising from an earlier order conditionally certifying a collective under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Conditional certification permits potentially eligible employees to receive notice and opt into an FLSA lawsuit; it does not finally decide the merits of their claims.

The earlier order allowed Cruz and Raymundo to represent a conditional collective of employees at the Flushing Restaurant. Both had worked in the kitchen and identified other kitchen employees whom they claimed had experienced similar compensation violations. They did not identify wait staff or delivery workers with similar alleged violations. The earlier order’s decretal language nevertheless referred to all nonexempt, non-managerial employees who worked at the Flushing Restaurant from August 16, 2016, to the present.

Named plaintiff Juan Li also failed to comply with discovery. Li missed a deposition scheduled for June 2, 2020, and did not answer defendants’ interrogatories by October 14, 2020, despite having been given an additional opportunity. Plaintiffs’ counsel stated that Li had become unreachable, had moved to China, and had told counsel not to contact her again. Counsel moved to withdraw from representing Li, and defendants sought dismissal as a discovery sanction.

Plaintiffs also moved for reconsideration of the earlier decision not to conditionally certify a collective at the Midtown Restaurant. The court had concluded that the named plaintiffs, who worked in the kitchen, were not sufficiently similar to potential opt-in delivery workers because of differences in timing, job requirements, and pay provisions.

Rulings

Flushing Restaurant clarification. The court granted defendants’ request for clarification. It limited the Flushing conditional collective to current and former nonexempt, non-managerial kitchen workers at the Flushing Restaurant. The court stated that it would issue an accompanying amended opinion modifying the earlier wording.

Li’s discovery and counsel’s withdrawal. The court did not dismiss Li’s claims at this stage. It concluded that lesser sanctions were unlikely to compel compliance, but gave Li six weeks from the order’s date to answer the interrogatories. If Li had not responded by November 30, 2020, the court would entertain a renewed motion to dismiss her claim with prejudice, either as a discovery sanction or for failure to prosecute. The court stated that plaintiffs’ counsel would continue representing Li at least until the six-week period ended. The motion to withdraw was denied without prejudice to renewal after six weeks had expired.

Midtown Restaurant reconsideration. The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. It explained that the earlier decision had already addressed whether the named kitchen-worker plaintiffs were sufficiently similar to potential delivery-worker participants, and that plaintiffs’ motion identified no new issue that had not been considered.

Classification

This was a procedural order. The court ruled on the scope of conditional certification, discovery-related consequences, withdrawal of counsel, and reconsideration; it did not decide the underlying FLSA claims on their merits.