Chen v. Matsu Fusion Restaurant Inc
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-11895
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Chen v. Matsu Fusion Restaurant Inc.: Judge Furman denied reconsideration of collective certification covering tipped and non-tipped workers under federal wage law.
The ruling affected Matsu Fusion Restaurant Inc. and Yi Chang Chen, who sought reconsideration, and the proposed tipped and non-tipped workers included in the conditionally certified FLSA collective action.
What happened
In Chen v. Matsu Fusion Restaurant Inc., the court had conditionally approved a group action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, allowing tipped and non-tipped workers to proceed together based on alleged wage violations.
The defendants asked the court to reconsider and exclude non-tipped workers, arguing that the workers were not similarly situated. The court noted that the defendants had already made that argument and that the court had rejected it after finding enough evidence of a common wage violation.
Judge Jesse M. Furman denied the defendants’ motion for reconsideration and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion on the docket.
The detailed version
- Chen v. Matsu Fusion Restaurant Inc · No. 1:19-cv-11895
- Jesse Furman
- Nov. 23, 2020
Background
On November 16, 2020, the court granted Guangfu Chen and Peizheng Fan’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Conditional certification allows potentially similarly situated workers to receive notice of the case and consider joining it. The court’s earlier order included both tipped and non-tipped workers.
On November 17, 2020, Matsu Fusion Restaurant Inc. and Yi Chang Chen moved for reconsideration. They argued that the collective action should exclude non-tipped workers because the plaintiffs had not shown that tipped and non-tipped workers were similarly situated for purposes of an FLSA violation.
Reasoning
The court rejected the motion because the defendants had already made the same argument in their original briefing. The court explained that it had considered and rejected that argument when it found that the plaintiffs had made a sufficient showing that tipped and non-tipped workers were similarly situated regarding whether an FLSA violation had occurred. The court also cited decisions allowing collective actions to include both tipped and non-tipped employees when the workers claimed they were not paid the required minimum wage or overtime.
The court further stated that reconsideration is not a way to reargue issues, present new theories, obtain another hearing on the merits, or take a second opportunity to make the same case. It said reconsideration generally requires the moving party to identify controlling law or information that the court overlooked.
Ruling
The court denied the moving defendants’ motion for reconsideration. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate Docket No. 65.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.