Chen v. Lilis 200 West 57th Corp.

Background

Chang Yan Chen brought claims individually and on behalf of similarly situated employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law, and New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law. He alleged that, while working as a delivery worker for Lilis 200 West 57th Corp. and 792 Restaurant Food Corp., he was not paid the required minimum wage for all hours worked, did not receive overtime pay for hours over 40 in a workweek, and was denied other wage-related payments and reimbursements.

The second amended complaint also named Baumgart’s Next Door Inc., doing business as Baumgart’s Café, and alleged that the three restaurants formed a single enterprise. Defendants moved to dismiss Baumgart’s Café and the New Jersey wage-law claims. Chen conceded that he never worked for Baumgart’s Café and never worked in New Jersey.

Claims Against Baumgart’s Café

The court applied the standard for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. It held that Chen did not allege enough facts to show that Baumgart’s Café was his employer under either a joint-employer theory or a single-integrated-enterprise theory.

The court explained that Chen did not allege that Baumgart’s Café was a parent company of the other restaurants, that he worked for Baumgart’s Café, or that his work for the other restaurants benefited Baumgart’s Café. The complaint’s allegation that one employee worked for both Baumgart’s Café and 792 Restaurant Food Corp. was insufficient by itself. The court also found that Chen’s allegations about shared ownership and management were conclusory and did not plausibly show shared operations, centralized labor control, common management, or common ownership or financial control.

The court therefore dismissed all claims against Baumgart’s Café under the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law, and New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law. The order states that Baumgart’s Café was dismissed with prejudice.

New Jersey Wage-Law Claims

The court granted the motion to dismiss Chen’s New Jersey wage-law claims because he conceded that he never worked in New Jersey. The dismissal was without prejudice to putative class members later asserting New Jersey wage-law claims. The court stated that it could consider whether such claims could be asserted if Chen successfully obtained certification of a class that included people with those claims.

The court also exercised its discretion to dismiss the New Jersey claims as to all defendants, including defendants who did not appear to have joined the motion, because Chen had notice and an opportunity to address dismissal and the claims were legally untenable as pleaded.

Request to Amend

Chen asked for permission to file another amended complaint. The court denied that request. It noted that the second amended complaint was his third complaint and that he had already amended his pleading to add Baumgart’s Café and the New Jersey claims despite knowing that he had not worked for Baumgart’s Café or in New Jersey. The court found that amendment would be futile because the additional facts Chen raised outside the complaint would not change the result and he identified no further facts supporting single-enterprise liability.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied Chen’s request to amend his complaint. The order specifically dismissed Baumgart’s Café with prejudice and dismissed the New Jersey wage-law claims without prejudice.